Reebok Reaches $25 Million Settlement Over Toning Sneakers

Skeptical about all those shoes that promise to tone your butt and shrink your thighs?

The Federal Trade Commission has confirmed all your doubts by announcing this morning that Reebok must pay $25 million in a settlement over their Easytone and RunTone products, which fail to fulfill the body-shaping promises claimed in the ads.

The FTC wrote in a press release today:

According to the FTC complaint, Reebok made unsupported claims in advertisements that walking in its EasyTone shoes and running in its RunTone running shoes strengthen and tone key leg and buttock (gluteus maximus) muscles more than regular shoes.

David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said, “The FTC wants national advertisers to understand that they must exercise some responsibility and ensure that their claims for fitness gear are supported by sound science.”

It probably didn't help that Reebok got quite specific with its claims, showing a super fit woman in commercials who assures viewers that EasyTone sneakers strengthen hamstrings and calves by up to 11 percent and tone one's butt "up to 28 percent more than regular sneakers, just by walking."

How was Reebok planning on backing that up, exactly?

The sneakers, which include different styles for running, walking and training, retail for about $100 each. Ad Age writes that as of November 2010, Reebok had sold five million pairs in the US and 10 million abroad.

Now the athletic company's got to pay it all back to the tune of $25 million. If you bought the shoes and want cash back, send in a refund request form here.

UPDATE: Reebok has responded to the controversy and maintained its stance on the shoes, telling us: "We stand behind our EasyTone technology – the first shoe in the toning category that was inspired by balance-ball training. Settling does not mean we agree with the FTC’s allegations; we do not. We have received overwhelmingly enthusiastic feedback from thousands of EasyTone customers, and we remain committed to the further development of our EasyTone line of products. Our customers are our number one priority, and we will continue to deliver products that they trust and love."

WATCH:

Comments

[NYLSBlog]

05:55 PM on 10/23/2011

What was it about these ads that caught the FTC's eye? Why didn't the FTC look into ads by other shoe companies for the same shoes? New York Law School's blog, "Legal as She is Spoke" explains. Check it out!

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/10/16/reebok-giving-you-a-run-for-your-money/

[jandos]

06:29 PM on 10/01/2011

Oops - forgot to add that I never thought for a moment that the shoes would give me a killer rack like the model. I'm just sick of totally ridiculous suggestions and claims, unless they're tongue in cheek.

[jandos]

06:27 PM on 10/01/2011

I was so happy to read this! I had considered looking into these when I first heard of them but after I saw the commercial I was truly irritated, almost angered. They used women who were SO tight and fit that it couldn't have been more unrealistic. Not to mention, each woman had the same body shape/style. They didn't even bother to use a variety of fit body types. I'm so sick of the BS in advertising that suggests that we all have to look a certain way.

I would wager that the women in those commercials only looked that good because they were dancers or super dedicated athletes. The commercial reminded me of one of the cheap ads in the way back of magazines that promise fuller lips and is accompanied by a woman who was clearly photoshopped within an inch of her life - totally unrealistic!

That said, I do have a pair of the MBTs and they are awesome. I used them religiously for a while and I have to say, my legs looked great. Not so sure about the rear, but I love them and you can feel the difference in your workout when you use a treadmill. Unfortunately I look like I have cement blocks fastened to my feet when I wear them...

[DMSmith]

08:23 PM on 09/29/2011

"Now the athletic company's got to pay it all back to the tune of $25 million"
LOL They sold over 15 million pair at about $100 each. $25 million is NOT paying it 'all' back by a long shot. They're still profitable!!! How about they pay back EVERY cent and stop lying?!?!?!

[BillySOS]

07:22 PM on 09/29/2011

Seems like the folks who didn't know smoking was bad for you suing the cigarette companies! Diet is 80%, Exercise is 20%, Shoes 0%. Everyone knows this...

[slocomgp]

10:38 AM on 09/30/2011

Truth in advertising

[PatientZeroBeat]

11:14 AM on 09/29/2011

There's a counter lawsuit started by People With Brains Who Understand The Most Fundamental Basics About Physics and Exercise against all the idiots who actually believed Reebok's claims in the first place.

[OMGWTH]

11:09 AM on 09/29/2011

And are we to believe that the model's "perfect derriere" was not Photoshopped for the print ads? Squats & lunges are no fun (in fact, I hate 'em), but they do work.

[cameron d]

10:56 AM on 09/29/2011

How many pairs of shoes did they sell? $25 million might just have been worth it.

[jetle25]

10:55 AM on 09/29/2011

Toning sneakers and Sandal Boots will go down in history as the fugliest things ever worn

[aphextwin07]

10:47 AM on 09/29/2011

now that is a great commercial... the shaping claim though? kind of hard to believe! they look just like any ordinary running shoe.

[SeanMMasters]

10:45 AM on 09/29/2011

If you want a nice derrière, do squats. No way around it, just do 'em.

[Bill Koerner]

10:36 AM on 09/29/2011

So, out of curiosity... how did they come up with 28%? Random number generator?

[Ainsaade]

03:27 PM on 09/30/2011

It's high enough to sound interesting, but low enough (under 30%) to not make most people's BS radar go off.

[JonShank]

09:39 AM on 09/29/2011

What would Jesus wear?

[Hypocrites are Watching]

09:03 AM on 09/29/2011

LMFAO ant thats not just a claim it really happened!!

[JtownesquireAgain]

08:55 AM on 09/29/2011

So..they sold 15 million pairs at $100 a pair...thereby making $1.5 BILLION dollars...but it's all ok becuase they have to pay $25 million in the settlement!

Their claims are fraud...and fraud is a crime...so apparently crime does pay..and it pays VERY well.

[Bill Koerner]

10:33 AM on 09/29/2011

C'mon, lets think this through.... The shoes SOLD for approximately $100 a pair.... That is NOT what REEBOK got for them.... If you figure at least 40% markup, that means Reebok made $70 a pair in revenue. Not sure what there costs are, but obviously that is not all profit.

[JtownesquireAgain]

08:50 AM on 09/30/2011

Ok. You're right. Reebok didn't get $100 per pair...so...let's say it is a 50% mark-up...they made $750,000,000.....now, let's say that 5% of that is profit...they made a profit of $37,500,000...they have to pay $25,000,000....they still made $12,500,000 for their fraud....that still a nice profit for their crime!