Target Fails to Dismiss TrimStep Toning Shoe Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Target Fails to Dismiss TrimStep Toning Shoe Class Action Lawsuit

By Matt O’Donnell

A Minnesota federal judge ruled last week that Target Corp. must face a class action lawsuit alleging it deceptively marketed its TrimStep toning shoes with bogus claims about their health benefits. The Target TrimStep class action lawsuit is seeking damages for anyone who purchased TrimStep footwear in the United States, as well as an order halting the false advertising of the shoes.

U.S. District Judge Joan N. Erickson denied Target’s motion to dismiss the TrimStep class action lawsuit, rejecting the company’s arguments that its advertising statements that the shoes tone the wearer’s leg muscles and help improve posture – which Plaintiff Erin Laughlin claimed convinced her to pay $40 for the shoes – are “mere puffery,” and that “no reasonable person would rely on the statements that the shoes provide any physical benefits.”

Judge Erickson disagreed, saying: “The statements that TrimStep shoes ‘help promote muscle toning in the legs,’ ‘help improve your posture,’ and ‘help relieve stress on your feet and joints’ are not ‘exaggerated statements of bluster or boast upon which no reasonable consumer would rely,’ nor are they ‘vague or highly subjective claims of product superiority…. Even in context, these statements are descriptions of characteristics of the product that are specific and measureable claims, “capable of being proved false.”

Judge Erickson also rejected Target’s argument that the Plaintiff could not allege an injury based on the claim that she “paid too much for it” or that she would not have purchased the TrimStep toning shoes had she known the truth, saying Laughlin “is not asserting that the TrimStep shoes have merely a propensity to fail in the future — she is asserting that the product already fails to perform as advertised. When a complaint alleges misrepresentation or fraud that induces a consumer to purchase a product, Minnesota courts have recognized that allegations of damages similar to Laughlin’s establish a legally sufficient claim for relief.”

Target also tried to dismiss the TrimStep toning shoes class action lawsuit by arguing that it no longer sells TrimStep shoes, so there would be no public benefit in obtaining injunctive relief.

Judge Erickson rejected that argument as well: “Target’s only evidence regarding its discontinuation of the sale of TrimStep shoes is an affidavit in which the affiant states that Target stopped selling the shoes. There is nothing in the record indicating why Target stopped selling the shoes, or that Target will not resume selling them again in the future. Target has not made it “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Laughlin’s claim for injunctive relief is not moot, and the Complaint sufficiently alleges a public benefit.”

Despite denying Target’s motion to dismiss the TrimStep class action lawsuit, a ruling was not made on whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

Keep checking Top Class Actions for updated information about the Target TrimStep Toning Shoes Class Action Lawsuit.

The case is Erin M. Laughlin v. Target Corporation, Case No. 12-cv-1986, U.S. District Court, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.

Updated August 1st, 2012

All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions