Reebok Paying To Settle Charges Over Shoe Claims

By Diane Bartz in Washington and Nivedita Bhattacharjee in Bangalore | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reebok International Ltd has agreed to pay $25 million to settle charges that it made unsupported claims that its "toning shoes" provide extra muscle strength, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Wednesday.

The money will go toward consumer refunds.

Reebok advertisements said the shoes strengthened hamstrings and calves by up to 11 percent more than regular sneakers, and toned the buttocks by up to 28 percent more, the FTC said.

"To its credit, Reebok pulled these ads sometime in the middle of our investigation," David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Consumer Protection Bureau.

           More on the truth about toning shoes and other fitness gear that doesn't work

Toning shoes are designed to be slightly unstable. Makers of such shoes often say the instability requires the wearer to work harder, thus strengthening muscles.

"We did get consumer complaints. We watch TV. We read the newspapers," said Vladeck. "There is no such thing as a no-work, no-sweat way to a fit and healthy body."

Adidas, which owns Reebok, said in a statement that it disagreed with the FTC and stood behind the shoes.

"The (FTC) allegations suggested that the testing we conducted did not substantiate certain claims used in the advertising of our EasyTone line of products," Adidas said. "In order to avoid a protracted legal battle, Reebok has chosen to settle with the FTC. Settling does not mean we agreed with the FTC's allegations; we do not."

The company added, "We stand behind our EasyTone technology -- the first shoe in the toning category that was inspired by balance-ball training."

A variety of companies advertise toning shoes, including New Balance, Skechers, Ryka and Avia.

Skechers acknowledged in an August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the FTC was looking at its advertisements for its Shape-ups and other toning shoes.

The FTC said Reebok began making the claims about its EasyTone and RunTone shoes in early 2009, and provided statistics about the purported benefits of the shoes.

The refunds to customers will be made available either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class-action lawsuit, the agency said. To apply for a refund, click here.

Now the question is: Will the Kardashians be held responsible at all for their involvement with the brand? They were really pushing this brand and these shoes since they came out. They even had a Reebok commercial that ran during the Super Bowl. I hope the had a good attorney when they wrote their contracts with Reebok. (I'm sure Momma Jenner took care of every detail)

Check out some photos below of the Kardashians in the shoe adds and promoting the brand. 

Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather?

No Moral Distinction
Gary L. Francione is a distinguished professor of law at Rutgers School of Law–Newark. 

There is no moral distinction between fur and other materials made from animals, such as leather, which also is the result of the suffering and death of sentient beings. And as anyone who is knowledgeable about wool production knows, it, too, comes from animals who are treated brutally in the shearing process and ultimately killed in a slaughterhouse. These anti-fur campaigns are not only problematic as a matter of moral theory; they are a practical failure in real-world terms.

For a variety of reasons, many animal advocates are drawn to these “single-issue” campaigns that seek arbitrarily to declare some form of animal use or some animal product as morally more odious than others. These campaigns are not only problematic as a matter of moral theory; they are a practical failure in real-world terms. The anti-fur campaign has been around for decades and the fur industry is as strong as ever. As long as we refuse to think critically about institutionalized animal use as a general matter, such campaigns really cannot make much sense.

 Most of us accept that imposing "unnecessary" pain, suffering and death on animals is wrong. Whatever “necessity” means in this context, it implies that it is wrong to impose suffering or death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. But those are the only justifications we have for imposing suffering and death on over 56 billion animals (not counting fish) we kill annually worldwide for food. No one maintains we need to eat animal products for optimal health, and there is a growing consensus that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.

 We eat animals because they taste good. And if that’s O.K., what’s wrong with wearing fur? We need as a society to think seriously about our institutionalized animal use. Efforts like the West Hollywood fur “ban” will not get us any closer to that goal. Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

 What are your thoughts on the fur ban idea?

More Missoni

A friend of mine found some great Missoni pieces in Oklahoma City. 

Check them out.

Colors Projected by Pantone for Spring 2012

Dance Into Spring 2012

Fall is barely upon us but in the fashion world you must always be looking forward. Pantone has released their color projections for Spring 2012 and I wanted to share them with my fashion forward readers. 

For spring 2012 designers are inspired by diverse influences, showcasing a range of
styles and lifestyles, from free and playful and light and breezy, to contemporary classics. Colors likewise reflect these differing moods, encapsulating vivid brights, soft muted tones and fun-loving pastels.

"Consumers look to spring for renewed energy, optimism and the promise of a brighter day," said Leatrice Eiseman, executive director of the Pantone Color Institute^®. "They 
have learned how color can help them alter a mood and provide the vitality and enthusiasm that enables them to experiment with new looks and color combinations."

Provocative Tangerine Tango, an enticing juicy orange, is a vivacious and appealing refresher to enliven anyone's outlook this spring. Providing a jolt of energy, Solar Power radiates warmth and cheer.

Fanciful Bellflower, a distinct ornamental purple, exudes uniqueness and creativity. Scintillating and sexy, Cabaret is a sensual and intense rosy-red — an excellent 
choice for summer clothing and cosmetics.

Sodalite Blue, a classic maritime hue, brings order and calmness to mind. Like an 
anchor to a ship, this dependable shade works with every color in the palette. 
Cockatoo, a tactile blue-green, is sure to make your spirits soar. This unusual hue 
adds a whimsical touch to the palette and will surely make a statement this spring.

Margarita, a piquant yellow-green, lifts spirits with its refreshing and stimulating glow. Reminiscent of a blossoming garden on an early spring morning, fragrant Sweet Lilac evokes the fresh scents of summer. This delicate pinkish lilac adds a touch of romance 
to any wardrobe.

Natural versatile neutrals add practicality to this season's brights. Driftwood, an 
adaptable blend of beige and gray with a slightly weathered feel, and Starfish, a 
perfect warm summer neutral, complement all colors featured in this season's top 10.

For an ultra-bold vibrant look this spring, try mixing Bellflower with Tangerine Tango 
and Cabaret. Combine Margarita with Sweet Lilac and Cockatoo for a subtle 
alternative, or combine Margarita with Sweet Lilac and Driftwood for a more 
practical variation. Solar Power is best juxtaposed with Sodalite Blue. For a safer 
bet, add a natural neutral like Starfish to the mix.

For over 18 years, Pantone, the global authority on color, has surveyed the designers 
of New York Fashion Week and beyond to bring you the season's most important 
color trends. This report previews the most prominent hues for spring 2012.

Missoni for Target

Fashion Frenzy at Target: Italian Designer Missoni Releases Line for Target (video)