August 2017: A federal judge granted in part and denied in part Nike’s motion to dismiss. Claims related to products sold in non-outlet stores and claims for injunctive relief were dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. The judge is allowing claims relating to products sold at outlet stores to move forward.

March 2017: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making similar allegations (i.e., Nike misleadingly marketed price discounts on products sold exclusively at Nike Outlet stores).

February 2017: A federal judge dismissed the complaint finding that the named plaintiff did not show that she has standing to seek injunctive relief and failed to meet the heightened pleading requirement for fraud-based claims. The judge gave her 30 days to amend the complaint.

April 2016:class-action lawsuit was filed against Nike for allegedly misleadingly comparing discounted prices to retail prices. According to the complaint, the items were never sold at the represented retail price and the represented retail price was not the prevailing marketing price within the three months immediately before the advertisement, as required by California law. (Taylor et al v. Nike, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-661, D. OR.)

For more information about the deceptive advertising of discounts and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.


Class-Action Tracker

Nike+ FuelBand

Class Action

Nike+ FuelBand

June 2015: A state judge preliminarily approved a settlement of this class-action lawsuit. According to the settlement terms, class members may receive either a $15 refund or a $25 gift…


The Latest

Filters