Federal Trade Commission Sues Gravity Defyer and its Owner for Violating FTC Order and Making Baseless Pain-Relief Claims to Market Footwear

The Federal Trade Fee is having action versus California-primarily based Gravity Defyer Healthcare Technological innovation…

Federal Trade Commission Sues Gravity Defyer and its Owner for Violating FTC Order and Making Baseless Pain-Relief Claims to Market Footwear

The Federal Trade Fee is having action versus California-primarily based Gravity Defyer Healthcare Technological innovation Company and its proprietor Alexander Elnekaveh, submitting a criticism in federal district courtroom to permanently stop their allegedly misleading ache-aid claims for Gravity Defyer footwear.

In a complaint filed in federal district court docket, the FTC alleged that Elnekaveh violated a 2001 buy barring him from this kind of allegedly deceptive promoting by producing scientifically unsupported claims and working with misleading client recommendations to offer Gravity Defyer merchandise. The FTC claimed that the company’s advertisements often qualified older Us citizens struggling from discomfort-associated situations like arthritis.

“Ignoring a prior Fee buy, Gravity Defyer and its proprietor utilised bogus suffering-aid claims to focus on more mature Us citizens and undercut trustworthy competitors,” claimed Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Purchaser Protection. “Healthcentered statements need science-primarily based evidence, and faking it by misusing experiments and purchaser testimonials breaks the regulation.”

Due to the fact at least 2016, the defendants have advertised their Gravity Defyer footwear as made up of soles with “VersoShock” technological know-how that supposedly relieves ache, together with pain in people suffering from quite a few health-related conditions. In accordance to the FTC’s complaint, the advertisements claim, without skilled and reliable scientific evidence, that Gravity Defyer footwear:

  • will relieve soreness, including knee, back again and foot pain
  • will ease suffering in men and women suffering from various circumstances these kinds of as plantar fasciitis, arthritis, joint ache, and heel spurs and
  • is clinically verified to decrease discomfort, which include 85 per cent fewer knee suffering, 91 percent significantly less back discomfort, 92 percent much less ankle soreness, and 75 per cent significantly less foot suffering.

Gravity Defyer has offered much more than 100 designs of footwear for guys and women on its website, such as athletic sneakers, everyday sneakers, dress shoes, hiking footwear and boots, and sandals. Selling prices have ranged from $140 for men’s and women’s sandals to $155 for the commonly advertised Mighty Wander strolling footwear, and $235 for men’s work boots.

The firm sells Gravity Defyer footwear on its very own web-site, by way of its in-house call centre, and at vendors throughout the state, such as The Walking Business, Hammacher Schlemmer, and Shoe Metropolis, in accordance to the FTC. It advertises the products and solutions by journal ads, Facebook adverts, Online ads, radio commercials and catalogs.

Just one of the company’s advertisements mentioned that Gravity Defyer sneakers are “clinically demonstrated agony defying footwear.” Another stated, “Enjoy the positive aspects of exercise, with established agony aid.” The company’s advertisements cite a examine to back again up their statements, but the FTC alleges this research has substantial flaws and was insufficient to decide the results of sporting Gravity Defyer footwear.

In filing the complaint, the Fee is trying to find an purchase completely barring the defendants from making misleading or deceptive suffering-relief statements, as nicely as civil penalties and other relief.

The Commission vote to authorize the team to approve the complaint and proposed order was 4-. It was submitted in the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Columbia.

Be aware: The Commission authorizes the filing of a criticism when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the regulation and it seems to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public desire.