Do Croc shoes shrink in heat and under direct sunlight, and did the company know about any deficiencies?
Those are some of the questions that Crocs Inc. will have to answer in a federal district court lawsuit filed in California in San Francisco. It’s one that also is expected to seek class-action status.
The case is already before a judge as the complaint was filed by four plaintiffs last December. They are seeking class-action status, but due to a technicality in the start of the purported class-action period, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson gave them the ability to amend the case with the appropriate timing adjustment.
The lawsuit cited some legal claims that were dismissed by Thompson, and the plaintiffs were told that while they could refile seeking class-action status, they basically can’t add new causes of action to the suit without court approval.
That ruling on Friday also stuck down one component of the plaintiffs attempt to sue for fraud because the original complaint wasn’t specific enough on which marketing material relied upon misrepresented the shoes or where they saw them. She did allow the allegation of duty to disclose to proceed, noting that Crocs “allegedly received thousands of complaints regarding the shrinkage problems and is aware of customer complaints posted on Defendant’s website.”
The judge also sided with Crocs and dismissed the charge that the company violated an express warranty, but that was because there was no allegation that the shoes were defective at the time they were bought.
According to the suit, the plaintiffs charged that Crocs failed to alert consumers that its shoes are constructed of a material that shrinks when exposed to ordinary heat and/or direct sunlight. That shrinkage, or warping, resulted in the shoes no longer fitting the purchaser’s feet. Calling that a design flaw, the plaintiffs alleged that the shoes are unsuitable for ordinary use.
The majority of Crocs shoes use a proprietary resin material called Croslite.
Crocs still has to answer questions about whether it knew of the alleged defect under implied warranty claims. Friday’s order said there were enough allegations to “sufficiently allege” that the shoes lacked a basic degree of fitness, as well as a minimum level of quality.
Crocs did not provide a comment on the case by press time.
The plaintiffs have until July 9 to refile an amended complaint, and failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. And even presuming the timely filing of the amended paperwork, the plaintiffs still need to prove their allegations at trial.
