Adidas Wins Bid to Deny Class Certification in Springblade 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.

Adidas wins its bid to deny certification of a nationwide Class of consumers who allege the company’s Springblade sneakers are defective and fall apart after one or two uses.

In July 2015, plaintiff Edward Ruffo filed the proposed class action lawsuit against Adidas, claiming he bought “several” pairs of Springblade sneakers from third-party retailers such as amazon.com, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and also directly from Adidas.com for use on a treadmill.

He alleges that “after only a few days of use limited to running on treadmill” each pair of Springblades began to deteriorate in the same manner.

Specifically, Ruffo claims that the “midsole” of the sneaker, which consists of “two pieces of semi-rigid plastic [which] are bonded together, is especially problematic and prone to delamination.”

Ruffo notes that his visited various online forums related to running equipment, including sneakers, and learned through other customer reviews that he was far from the only one to experience the alleged defect.

Many online customer complaints charge that the soles of the Adidas Springblade running shoes are defectively designed causing them to wear out prematurely.

In short, the unique design of the sole and the “bonding between two semi-rigid components at the forefoot flex area” causes the sole to deteriorate faster than commercially reasonable.

Ruffo says he attempted to contact Adidas regarding a refund for the $200 shoes and that no one responded to his complaints.

Adidas filed a motion to reject the bid to certify the proposed Class in July, stating that Ruffo’s proposed classes are “absurdly overbroad.”

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein sided with Adidas and denied Ruffo’s motion for class certification in its entirety, ruling that Ruffo failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that every person who purchased Springblade shoes experienced injury from the alleged defect and are entitled to damages.

“In fact, the limited discovery carried out so far suggests that for Springblade sneakers, Adidas internal databases show a defect return rate of approximately 0.7 percent,” Judge Hellerstein said, adding that “while not every purchaser of defective sneakers would return them, this number seriously undermines the proposition that every person who bought the Springblade shoes eventually experienced harm due to the alleged defect.”

Even if plaintiffs limited the Class to those whose Springblade suffered from a defect, they would still need to demonstrate that this defect caused each Class Member’s shoes to delaminate, the judge states.

Judge Hellerstein also concluded that nationwide certification in this case “is impracticable” due to the differences in the 46 warranty and consumer protection laws listed in Ruffo’s complaint.

Last October, Adidas moved to dismiss the proposed class action lawsuit claiming that Ruffo’s complaint attempted to disguise warranty claims as consumer fraud claims. The shoe manufacturer also alleged that Ruffo had no interaction with the company to obtain a refund.

Adidas has since redesigned and marketed the Springblade Ignite for a reduced cost. Ruffo claims that this redesign was a result of complaints from consumers.

Ruffo is represented by Jeremy A. Hellman of Rheingold Valet Rheingold McCartney & Giuffra LLP.

The Adidas Springblade Class Action Lawsuit is Ruffo v. Adidas America Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05989, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.