Kim Kardashian Sponsored Shoes Lead to Settlement:  Skechers Proves We Need Clinical Trials Of Running Shoes

Kim Kardashian with her "Shape-Ups"

Photo:  AP

I’m of the opinion that we don’t run enough clinical trials for things that are not obviously medicines or medical devices, but that people generally assume have health benefits. Things like yogurt — and sneakers. Today, Skechers proved my point by getting in trouble with the feds.

Today the Federal Trade Commission announced that Skechers USA, the discount sneaker maker that found its way to premium pricing by selling “toning shoes” with rounded soles that were supposed to strengthen muscles better than regular sneakers, would pay $40 million to settle claims “that the company deceived consumers by making unfounded claims that Shape-ups would help people lose weight, and strengthen and tone their buttocks, legs and abdominal muscles.”

Consumers who bought the shoes should go to www.ftc.gov/skechers. Besides Shape-ups, Skechers also made deceptive claims about its Resistance Runner, Toners, and Tone-ups shoes, the FTC argues, and. Consumers who bought these “toning” shoes will likewise be eligible for refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit.

Central to the FTC’s allegations is the argument that Skechers used bad science and celebrity endorsements (including Kim Kardashian and Brooke Burke) to sell the shoes. Two egregious-sounding examples from the FTC news release:

Shape-ups ads with an endorsement from a chiropractor named Dr. Steven Gautreau, who recommended the product based on the results of an “independent” clinical study he conducted that tested the shoes’ benefits compared to those provided by regular fitness shoes. The FTC alleges that this study did not produce the results claimed in the ad, that Skechers failed to disclose that Dr. Gautreau is married to a Skechers marketing executive, and that Skechers paid Dr. Gautreau to conduct the study.

An ad that claims consumers who wear Resistance Runner shoes will increase “muscle activation” by up to 85 percent for posture-related muscles, 71 percent for one of the muscles in the buttocks, and 68 percent for calf muscles, compared to wearing regular running shoes. The FTC alleges that in citing the study that claimed to back this up, Skechers cherry-picked results and failed to substantiate its ad claims.

via Skechers Will Pay $40 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers with Ads for “Toning Shoes”.

The idea that one type of shoes could be better than another is a testable claim — and there’s no reason that a company that wants to launch a marketing blitz on how their product will help you get in shape couldn’t spend a few million dollars on a reasonably sized study to prove that those benefits are actually there. Certainly, they could do better than relying on the husband of a marketing executive or using a weak, probably meaningless data point like “muscle activation.”

I’d like to see more studies like this one, being conducted by Nike, that randomly assigns runners to get one of three shoes: a traditional running shoe, a Nike minimalist shoe with less support, and a Vibram Five Fingers — those funny shoes that fit toes like gloves. (Full disclosure: I’ve been running in Vibrams lately, and like them, but I have no idea if I’m just falling for the latest fad.) There have been great arguments made that overly cushioned running shoes can increase the risk of certain injuries, based on studies of human biomechanics. A randomized trial can actually tell you whether that’s true.

Of course, having to actually prove marketing claims with science can be a rude awakening to companies who aren’t used to doing so. One example: Lifeway Foods, which, as I wrote in a magazine feature two years ago, complained when a clinical trial of its yogurt-like drink did not show the expected benefits. Or, to pick a bigger target, General Mills who was recently marketing Cheerios as if they were a cholesterol-lowering drug made by Merck or Pfizer. (Actually, the Cheerios ads were better than the drug company ones.) Coca-Cola‘s Vitaminwater brand is built entirely on putting vague-sounding benefits around sugar water that contains vitamins with little proof the vitamins are actually good for you. (There’s actually little evidence vitamin supplements help most people.)

One thing that’s pretty clear is that we need a better way of regulating these kinds of studies than the FTC, which applies relatively small fines after the fact. Having all these claims go through the FDA would probably be too expensive and time consuming, but we need better mechanisms to convince marketers to actually prove their claims before they push them on the broader market.

And I really am waiting for some more clinical trials of running shoes.