The settlement, in which neither company admits wrongdoing, stems from a 2013 lawsuit filed by consumers alleging Nike and Apple made false or misleading claims about the FuelBand’s ability to track calories, steps and NikeFuel, the sports company’s fitness tracking metric.
Under the proposed settlement [PDF], consumers who purchased the fitness tracker between January 19, 2012 and June 17, 2015 are eligible to receive either a $15 check or a $25 gift card redeemable online and at Nike-owned stores.
While both companies agreed to resolve the lawsuit, only Nike is responsible for covering the $2.4 million associated with attorney’s fees and refunds.
The Nike+Fuelband, first released in 2012, was developed out of a sporting technology partnership between Nike and Apple that began back in 2006, the settlement states.
According to the lawsuit [PDF], both companies consistently advertised in promotional materials that the FuelBand “measures each step taken and each calorie burned,” “tracks steps, calories, and time of day,” and “tracks calories burned, steps taken and more.”
However, in reality, the suit contends that the FuelBand could not and does not track each calorie burned or each step taken, as users “experience wildly inaccurate” step, calorie burn and NikeFuel readings.
“Despite their knowledge of the FuelBand’s inability to accurately track each of a user’s calories burned, steps taken, or to read or measure physical activity sufficiently to provide any form of accurate measurement of that activity,” the suit states. “The defendants promulgated and implemented the false and misleading advertising alleged herein as part of a business scheme designed to unfairly and unlawfully reap substantial profits at the expense of [consumers].”
A spokesperson for Nike tells the Wall Street Journal that the company remains committed to Nike+ and NikeFuel.
Consumers eligible for a partial refund under the settlement must make a claim on nikefuelbandsettlement.com by Jan. 4, 2016.
[via The Wall Street Journal]
by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist
No comments:
Post a Comment