New Balance sneakers marketed as Made in USA may have up to 30 percent of its parts made in China and abroad. (Reference 1)
On 12/20/2021 Cristostomo filed a Property – Personal Property Fraud lawsuit against New Balance Athletics, Inc. This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, Massachusetts District. The case status is Pending – Other Pending. (Reference 2)
I was initially going to name this post, Why I Think the New Lawsuit Against New Balance Will be Thrown Out. I stopped short of making that claim because of two important issues. I’m not a lawyer and this should not be taken as fact. This is an opinion post based on my own research.
Important Issue Number 1:
In argumentative essay writing, the biggest requirements for your paper to succeed are proof and a source. Proof/Sources give claims validity and support. If you’ve watched any courtroom drama, you’ve heard of a precedent being set. When this happens, odds are the lawyer arguing the case wins. In law, a precedent is a prior case that can be used to establish a position for or against an argument. New Balance is in a difficult position due to this precedent:
A $750,000 settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging New Balance shoes contain a misleading “Made in the USA” label.
If you purchased New Balance shoes with a “Made in the USA” label between Dec. 27, 2012 through Jan. 24, 2019 in California, you could get up to $10 per pair from this class action settlement. (Reference 3)
The previous lawsuit in Reference 3 was in California. This new lawsuit is in Massachusetts. Which leads to a troublesome situation for New Balance. A lawsuit could be initiated in every state where New Balance has been sold. Because New Balance already settled, this could be argued as an admission of guilt. Which is why I was going to say the case should be thrown out. The quote below is (from the same article on Class Action Suits above):
In addition to the monetary compensation, New Balance has also agreed to no longer use the phrase “Made in the USA” on the front of the tag or on the outside of the shoe box.
“On the back, in clear readable font, the hangtag will include the following sentence, or words to similar effect, ‘New Balance ‘made’ is a premium collection that contains domestic value of 70% or greater,’” the New Balance class action settlement states.
New Balance has already adjusted their language, so the new lawsuit doesn’t have any merit. However, while the precedent is set, a lot has changed since the California Class Action Suit was filed, argued and closed. Which leads me to my point of discussion that this new case could be thrown out, unless the following position is argued.
Important Issue Number 2:
When the initial lawsuit was launched, there weren’t really any sneaker brands making sneakers in the States. There were small batches of sneakers arriving from adidas and Nike’s design studios, but there weren’t brands making sneakers primarily in the U.S. This has changed. If the lawsuit Cristostomo et al v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. argues that New Balance’s claim of 70% should be removed because it is false when compared to a company like COMUNITYmade, that is a viable discussion which didn’t exist when the California lawsuit was launched.
Now here is where things get a bit murky. Even COMUNITYmade utilizes materials from other countries. Although they attempt to source materials in the U.S. and they build their sneakers in Downtown Los Angeles, components of the shoe are made in Italy and in China. This is why the lawsuit could be difficult to take to trial. After speaking with a couple of industry vets, they explained that any argument against New Balance is flawed due to verbiage. New Balance was required to change the use of “Made in the USA”. Notice I placed ‘the’ in bold print? The brand has adjusted their logos for the MADE sneakers. It only reads Made in USA, or they only show USA. None of this explains where the parts for the shoes are from. If a company imports every part of a sneaker and then they claim that it’s 100% assembled in the USA, they wouldn’t be wrong. It’s semantics. Made and assembled are synonyms. One of my peers explained this:
With different upper materials, soles, and internal components needed for each shoe, a brand could nail down a percentage for each style of shoe that is made, but it’s probably going to be a different number for every SKU.
This means that from one shoe to another the percentage of domestic value could vary. New Balance is clear in stating that the majority of the shoe is “made” in the USA. Although the precedent has been set, with stipulations placed on New Balance in the original case, the new lawsuit will be difficult to move forward I think. Could this new lawsuit use the California ruling to generate a class action lawsuit to cover sneakers bought during the same period in Massachusetts? Possibly, but overall I think the new case won’t even make it to trial. Should New Balance be required to change their verbiage again? Is there a need for more clarification of “Made in the USA”? It’s a compelling topic to analyze with the opportunity to introduce more information about where sneakers are manufactured and if sneaker culture, a driver of a lot of the industry, even cares about manufacturing and job opportunities created by the companies they love.
Resources for this post:
Reference 1 and 2: New Balance named in suit for ‘misrepresentation’ for sneakers made in USA
https://fashionunited.com/executive/report/new-balance-named-in-suit-for-misrepresentation-for-sneakers-made-in-usa/2021122844765
Reference 3: https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/california-new-balance-shoes-class-action-settlement/#:~:text=A%20class%20action%20lawsuit%20alleged%20that%20New%20Balance,according%20to%20the%20New%20Balance%20class%20action%20lawsuit.
Source for Lawsuit vs New Balance Mass Lawsuit: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cristostomo-et-al-v-new-balance-athletics-inc-1101357
