This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
It seemed like the perfect product: A shoe that promised to tone muscles, improve coordination and whip a body into shape without setting foot in a gym.
When Peggy Stults of Cedar City saw the advertisement for Skechers Shape-Ups toning shoes, she was sold.
But months after Stults had been walking around in the sneakers she purchased for about $100 in 2010, she began to experience knee discomfort. The pain continued and Stults found herself in a clinic, where she was diagnosed with bilateral tibial fractures in both her legs.
The doctor's diagnosis cited the shoes as the cause for Stults' injuries, according to a new federal lawsuit.
Stults and her husband, Michael, are suing the Manhattan Beach, Calif.-based companies that manufacture Skechers and promote the fitness benefits of the products, alleging Sketchers has failed to disclose safety risks associated with the shoes and profited through making false claims.
"[Skechers Shape-Ups] failed to include any warning or instruction that warned consumers of the fact that the design of the shoes could cause them to suffer chronic injuries and/or to fall and suffer acute injury," Stults' complaint, filed this week, states. "Failure to make an adequate warning made defendants' Shape-Ups footwear defective and unreasonably dangerous."
A spokesperson for Skechers Shape-Ups did not immediately return a message on Thursday seeking comment about the Stults' lawsuit.
The 59-year-old Iron County grandmother's lawsuit, however, is the latest blemish in the estimated $1.5 billion toning shoe industry, which finds itself fighting criticism from consumers who feel they've been taken for a ride after the shoes that promised to shape their bodies ended up causing injuries instead.
"These things didn't do what they say they were supposed to do, beyond the fact that they are a complete danger trap for anyone that would wear them," said Robert K. Jenner, a Baltimore attorney who is the lead counsel in 15 separate cases nationwide filed against Skechers Shape-Ups, including Stults' case.
Stults' lawsuit cites a 2010 study from researchers at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse that studied multiple brands of toning shoes, which use a "rocker bottom sole." The shape of the shoe is designed to keep a wearer's body off balance, forcing them to "work harder" than if standing around wearing regular footwear.
The researchers found no evidence toning shoes help consumers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength. They studied two groups of 12 physically active women ages 19 to 27, finding that the group that wore toning shoes didn't have an exercise advantage over the group that didn't wear the product.
"Don't buy these shoes because of the claims that you're going to tone your butt more or burn more calories. That's absolutely wrong," researcher John Porcari wrote in the report, funded by the non-profit American Exercise Counsel, titled "Will Toning Shoes Really Give You a Better Body?"
"Do you feel different when you're wearing these shoes? Of course you do because you're walking on probably an inch worth of cushioning.
"They feel different, and that's why when people first wear them they're probably going to be sore because you're using different muscles. But if you wear any sort of abnormal shoes that you're not used to wearing, your muscles are going to get sore. Is that going to translate into toning your butt, hamstrings and calves? Nope. Your body is just going to get used to it."
Skechers has disputed that research with a list of benefits associated with the products, detailed on the company's web site, http://www.skechers.com.
The Federal Trade Commission has also waded into the toning shoe controversy and in September reached a $25 million settlement with Reebok for making unsubstantiated fitness claims for its brand of shoes, called EasyTone. Consumers who felt duped by their Reebok purchase can file a claim with the FTC for a refund.
Reebok is now prohibited from advertising the health and fitness benefits of its toning shoes until it can back-up the claims with an "adequate and well-controlled human clinical study," court documents state.
It's unknown whether Stults' lawsuit could be the start of similar consumer litigation for Skechers Shape-Ups.
Stults bought the shoes in June 2010. Her shoes came with a DVD explaining that she should gradually wear the shoes as her body adjusted to them.
In October of that year, Stults began wearing her Shape-Ups on her 2.5-mile walk from her home to her job as a registered nurse. By November, severe knee pain prompted her to see a doctor. X-rays didn't reveal any fractures, but a celestone injection she received to dull the pain caused her to miss a week of work, the court complaint states. A month later, Stults' pain had increased. That's when an MRI revealed fractures in both legs. Her doctor, Randy Delcore, said the injuries were a result of her shoes, according to the complaint.
Stults is suing the company for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraud, loss of consortium, and violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act. The claim asks for an unspecified amount of damages for medical expenses, lost wages for two months of work she missed, pain and suffering, attorney's fees —and reimbursement for the cost of the shoes.
#@mrogers_trib