![]() and Imported Parts.” That’s what you would call a qualified claim, as opposed to an unqualified claim like “Made in USA.” (We would venture to say that the FTC would likely have no problem with the use of a qualified claim on the box or in the written statement.) The tongue did not name the imported parts but our suspicion that they included the Vibram outsole was confirmed by a Red Wing customer service representative. ![]() The first sign that the boots did not meet the FTC’s legal definition for “Made in USA” came when peeled back the tongue of the shoe and read the following: “Made in U.S.A. As a result, claims on the outside of the box that the shoes are “Made in USA,” and a statement about “USA-made excellence” on a piece of paper inside the box, are deceptive under FTC law. On its website Red Wing even promotes this particular outsole for “21st century adventures.” So in this case, the foreign content is not, to use the FTC’s term, negligible. Given that it provides the wearer traction, the outsole of a shoe is a pretty important piece of the puzzle. ![]() And we mean that literally: the rubber outsole on the bottom of the shoes is made in Italy.Īccording to the FTC, one of the factors considered by the agency in determining whether a product meets its Made in USA standard is the importance of the foreign content or processing to the overall function of the product. When the rubber meets the road, this $360 pair of Red Wing women’s boots is not a legally defensible “Made in USA” product.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |