Trek Bicycle is being sued for $5 million by US man over Bontrager WaveCel helmet safety claims are misleading

[Ross]

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industr ... misleading

Andrew Glancey of Staatsburg, New York, is the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit charges that the WaveCel helmet technology was "touted by the defendant as the most significant advancement in cycling in the last 30 years when it was released in early 2019."

While standard foam helmets protect the head against direct impacts, the suit says Trek markets WaveCel as "revolutionary" technology is effective at preventing concussions caused by cycling accidents. It says Trek's claim that WaveCel is "up to" 48 times more effective in providing head injury protection than its competitors is "false, deceptive and misleading."

The authors of Trek's helmet study claiming WaveCel technology is safer have a financial interest, according to the suit, which claims those helmets are only marginally better than less-expensive helmets. It also claims the study did not use the Trek-made Bontrager WaveCel helmet; instead, it used a Scott ARX helmet modified to include the WaveCel component.

"Trek believes in and stands behind our Bontrager WaveCel helmets," a Trek spokesman told BRAIN on Friday afternoon. "This lawsuit is without merit, and we will vigorously defend against it. The plaintiff has not made an allegation of physical injury. Trek will continue to responsibly promote and improve this innovation in helmet technology."

The company sold more WaveCel helmets at higher prices than it would have in the absence of the misrepresentations, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers, according to the suit. Trek has 10 Bontrager WaveCel models for kids and adults ranging in price from $89.99-$299.99.

[AUbicycles]

I read one of the write-ups and my takeaway was that all other brands shy away from making specific claims regarding safety... or at least keep them vague. As every single collision / impact is different, blanket claims are difficult.

Trek in contrast is said to have bucked the trend and made quite specific claim about the safety. I am not sure if it is an 'only in America' scenario where a company can be sued at this level for a claim when there is not yet a specific scenario.

In the interest of consumers however I would suggest that it is good when marketing claims have a backing (e.g. the Apple iphone that were claimed to be waterproof, but were not).

[nemo57]

Not a personal injury claim, thankfully.
Rather, it's a trade practices-type claim, asserting that the reality doesn't match the advertised benefits.
What's the loss of the "class"? Paid more for a helmet than they would have otherwise.
Hmm - and who benefits from this? Why, it's Sheehan and Associates, the lawyers for the class, who will collect 30-45% of the gross proceeds of any settlement or judgment. Pennies for the class members.
Given the difficulty of disproving the advertising claims (the plaintiffs must do this and it will require expert testimony based on scientific/engineering/medical facts yet to be established) AND the need to establish the value of the losses (what other helmets would have been bought? Expert accounting evidence is required on this) this looks to me like a kite-flying exercise: degree of difficulty 9.8.