A New York man is suing Trek Bicycles for $5 million dollars over safety claims about Bontrager helmets that he believes are misleading,
Bicycle Retailer and Industry News reports.
Wavecel is Bontrager's proprietary rotational protection system that is applied to some of its helmets. Rather than using a slip plane, like Mips, it uses a collapsible cellular material that's designed to flex, crumple, and glide to absorb the force of an impact. This did not replace the EPS foam that is used in most helmets but the amount of foam that's used is greatly reduced.
WaveCel was developed over the course of four years by Dr. Steve Madey, an orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Michael Bottlang, a biomedical engineer. The technology was released with a
peer-reviewed study that seemed to corroborate Trek's claims of increased protection, including that Wavecel was up to 48 times more effective than EPS foam at preventing concussions.
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 claims that Trek's marketing was "false, deceptive and misleading". It questions the reliability of the study, claiming that its authors had a financial interest in its success and that they used a traditional helmet modified to include the WaveCel component instead of a Bontrager helmet. The suit also claims that Trek's marketing allowed it to sell more helmets at higher prices than it would have otherwise done, meaning higher profits at the expense of its customers.
In a statement shared with
Cycling Tips, Trek said, "Trek believes in and stands behind our Bontrager Wavecel helmets. 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.”
Wavecel equipped helmets
shot to the top of the independent helmet rankings provided by Virginia Tech upon the release of the technology. However,
subsequent revisions of the rankings have seen
Mips-equipped helmets rise to the top once more. Trek's claims have also been questioned by other brands in the past including
Mips and
Koroyd.
Glancey is being represented by Sheehan & Associates of Great Neck, New York, which bills itself as a top consumer class-action specialist in areas including false or misleading advertising, B.R.A.I.N reports.
Makes me sick.
Ah, but $5,000,000 totally doesn’t constitute a financial interest to also be false, deceptive and misleading? Got it.
Also, in a class action, the amount of fees an attorney gets is decided by a judge who also reviews the settlement for fairness. The judges will often reject or request changes to the settlement if they think the class got a bad deal, and any class member can object to the amount of fees or just opt out.
Not a perfect system, but it's all we have in America protecting us from oceans of snake oil.
**Also, the reason the amount of damages sought is $5 million is because that is the minimum threshold to qualify for jurisdiction under the class action fairness act, which allows you to file in federal court instead of state court.
@mtb-sf: I agree and have argued the same point to people that lawsuits are a form of checks and balances to keep people honest. That said, in this case I fail to see how this lawsuit is about safety or will protect anyone, nor does this lawsuit seem to claim as much. I do not believe anyone who bought this helmet will act in a way different to how they would with a standard helmet, and although you can claim that the percentage safety gains this helmet provides are arbitrary, I doubt they are less safe than a standard helmet. In other words, I do believe anyone who bought or would buy this helmet would suffer an injury that they would not have otherwise suffered with any other helmet.
So really what you end up with these allegations is strictly a financial issue, not a safety one.
@friendlyfoe: lead plaintiff still likely to get an enhancement over the regular class members, but the judge has to approve it. Maybe $5k-$20k or so depending on the case and how much work they can convince the court they did.
You’d be surprised how much of the markup on a helmet is earmarked for future legal costs. Yay lawyers. I know we need them in some situations but they have too much free reign in my opinion and this suit is a clear example.
You sound knowledgeable, so what damage is the plaintiff seeking remedy for?
If none, what standing does he have?
What I'm not sure about is who the burden of proof would fall on here? Typically I would assume it is the plaintiff but in this case I'm not sure if Trek would be required to prove that its claims were backed up by data. Also interesting because there has never been anything resembling a consensus as to how to accurately test helmets based on real world factors.
I'm thinking that either
A) it's an ambulance chaser trying to pressure trek into an out of court settlement
B) the person filing the suit is somehow connected to an industry insider and is just trying to make trek look bad. You could get in pretty big trouble for that though.
Like Shakespeare said.....
I suspect my opposing counsel who represent corporations ride Moots
I would give the benefit of the doubt that the investigators you know did their due diligence, but Trek did not in their product roll-out.
Is it going to make you 48 times less likely to suffer a concussion if you jump out of a 20 story building? No.
It would also be nice if marketing departments actually made valid claims. The claim they made cannot ever be verified because a concussion causing event if fluid and non-quantifiable by nature. I'm glad they are trying to make safer helmets, but they should be equally responsible when selling them to people who may not have the knowledge or time to spend determining if the claims are warranted.
I don't think your hyperbole is warranted.
I'm not an attorney, but I know I'd not want weeks of my life spent sitting in a court room on the off chance they need to call me to the stand.
I think I found a solution: Completely plain no frills advertising. "The Trek Helmet" written on the screen in plain text. No image of the helmet will be posted because god forbid the green shown on the persons computer screen does not perfectly match the green on the helmet in real life.
This shit is why beer ads are so boring these days.
They should not be able to make the statement ‘decreases concussions by up to 48x’ because that cannot be quantified or proven in any way. Because of this it is patently false.
I realize that multitudes of companies across almost all markets make similar claims. The difference to me is that if a beer company says our ‘lawsuit lager’ tastes 48x more hoppy than the competition, the consequences of misrepresentation means somebody gets a poor tasting beer. Trek on the other hand is making claims about someone safety, health and possibly life in extreme cases. It has real consequences.
Again, if they would just say ‘minimizes the deceleration that plays a role in concussions by 48x’ they would be wholly within reason.
I'm guessing you'll be putting your name down for the trek class action? Get some of that free money!
I don't think that Trek face any real trouble in this scenario unless there is another published experiment that used the same exact procedure and found a lower value for concussion probability.
I do think that the investigators will pull phrases out of context but in the research paper they have their bases covered with stating that concussions are variable person to person.
httpss://helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
Time to put down the buffalo hat and put on a shirt, it's winter.
Any sufficiently advanced marketing is indistinguishable from b@llsh1t.
A man in New York is suing Treck because the helmets safety claims are misleading? I'm certain I don't own the only helmet with a sticker inside stating that the helmet prevents injury but will not be effective in every situation.
Lawer: who do we get big buck$ from. Treck is huge they have $ .
It seems to be getting mixed up a lot but their Wavecel technology is similar to MIPS where it can be inserted/repaced in helmets rather than it being the entire helmet. Cheers!
That being said - the reason these lawsuits actually occur is there is a good likelihood that the company knowingly advertised claims they cannot possibly prove to sell more helmets at a larger profit margin. Should they be financially liable if so - I believe the answer is yes. How else are we as a pool of citizens supposed to hold corporate power accountable for the way they market to us. They need fear of liability.
In my opinion, having a couple crashes with head impacts and currently own the MIPS systems and examining the way in which it is to function, i believe it's a step forward; but defiantly doesn't render the overall safety of a helmet that's much better than a helmet without. The only way to design a helmet how i see it, would require a type of gel or cushion to reduce greatly, the trauma during a violent impact. This combined with the helmet ability to rotate is going to do the job better than anything available but would have a weight penalty but with added comfort.
Also, lots of people don't wear a helmet correctly or purchased a helmet with an improper fit; sometimes due to the shape of their head and or sizing availability of helmets at their local bike shop and don't know any better. All these factors can play a roll in the performance of safety development with any given helmet.
So how is Trek's financial interests any different the the lawyers who don't have any car accidents to chase this week?
If they're successful, I think I'll sue someone too cuz I'm still fat despite having bought a sick new bike this year.
Nice to see you support baseless litigious assaults on the sport more than you do cycling though.
But I don't need $5 million for that opinion.
IF you paid for a repair, you could get back 'up to' $200.
Know how much the lawyers got? OVER $-MILLION-FIVE-$
Stuck with my MIPS equipped Giro.
That you are concussed and lost your memory. :-D
Welp, time to throw out the free market then.
It was ultra expensive, it wobbles about on my head, it makes additional noise other lids don’t, and it is a tad heavy.
I think the lawsuit is aimed in the correct direction. It was overhyped and the price was inflated. Hopefully the lawsuit proceeds to find out just how much I overpayed. Still, I am aware that as a buyer it is my responsibility to be aware of what I’m buying. But if this product is grossly overpriced, as I suspect, I’d like to see some compensation.
Or how about Fords that don't explode on impact anymore? You have the American consumer and their will to hold companies accountable to thank for that and many more examples of products that are now safe to use instead of cutting costs left right and centre at your life and limb's expense.