Reebok fined over false shoe claims

Australian fitness fans who invested in a pair of Reebok EasyTone shoes are in line for a refund after claims the footwear would tone bums and thighs were found to be misleading.

The ACCC took action against Reebok Australia over the shoes that were sold throughout major chains such as Sports Locker, Rebel Sport and Jim Kidd.

The shoes were first sold in 2009, promising that “ball-inspired technology” and air pockets would deliver a 28 per cent improvement to a person’s buttocks compared with ordinary shoes.

The EasyTones were also supposed to strengthen thighs and calves by 11 per cent.

But in September 2011 Reebok International paid $US25 million in consumer rebates after the US Federal Trade Commission alleged the claimed improvements were unproved.

The shoes, however, continued to be sold in Australia with Reebok advertising including claims they would increase the strength and muscle tone of calves, thighs and buttocks.

The Federal Court has, by consent, ordered Reebok Australia to pay a $350,000 fine for its claims.

But it also order the company to provide a refund of $35 per pair to shoppers who bought EasyTone shoes between September 2011 and February last year and who believe they suffered loss or damage because of Reebok’s claims.

Reebok will have to establish an 1800 number through which consumers can contact the company.

ACCC deputy chair Delia Rickard said the watchdog was concerned that Reebok had continued to claim major benefits from the shoes in Australia while they were the focus of legal action in the United States.

“The fact that these claims made about the alleged benefits of EasyTone shoes had come to the attention of regulators in other jurisdictions but still continued to be made in Australia by Reebok was of particular concern to the ACCC,” she said.

“Where businesses claim their products have certain performance characteristics and benefits, they have a responsibility to ensure that those claims are accurate and supported by credible evidence. This is particularly important in cases such as this where it is difficult for consumers to independently verify the claims.”