Had a potentially nasty crash wearing my wavecel helmet, front wheel got caught in a rut in the road, straight otb directly onto my head. Not only was I fine, but I barely felt it, which blew me away. Far as i'm concerned, i'm sold. Also, the case is kinda dumb, the $300 helmet referenced is their xxx racing helmet, which kinda aligns with other products on the market. Sounds like someone trying to make a quick buck to me

Could very well be. I am curious about using a different Henley for testing rather than the 'real' one if I am understanding this correctly.

---

"see the world as it is not as you want it to be"

Would someone help me understand these types of lawsuits? Trek is being sued for $5m because of a potential misleading/ false advertising. If successful, Trek gets punished in their profit margin. Who benefits/ Who gets the money? (Ya know, other than the lawyers...)

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Its a class action lawsuit, so anyone who bought a Wavecell helmet will get paid (and realistically will be like $5-$10). The goal of these lawsuits is to settle, not drag it out in court. The only winner will be the lawyers.

The lawyers are the winners. Oh you bought a helmet? Here's two bucks!

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I do not own a Trek bike (or helmet) but I hope they fight it in court rather than settle just so the firm that initiated this B.S. expends time and money and gets nothing.

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. I also saw this coming the day I saw all those BS claims. Sure, it's a good helmet. But you just can't wave around weird multipliers and claims for the hell of it.

They intentionally hyped that helmet to boost sales at a premium price. You can't go around inventing 40x safer claims and not expect some kind of penalty for your sins.

Also, the intent of these suits isn't to profit...........it's penalty to keep this specific companies and other related companies from making the same decision again. It's like a burn from a hot stove, don't touch the stove again.

They dipped their toes into snake oil style claims to make a profit, and now they're getting burned for it.

Good.

One thing that these outlets might want to do is actually read the law suit and have an expert comment. Having read it but certainly no expert I don't think there is much likelihood this suit will succeed. The 5 million is what they claim the company made from the false sales... that is not the claim for damages, in fact there is no actual numerical request for damages, but left it in the hands of the court. The suit hinges on 2 points from my reading, 1- they say that Trek has stated through extrapolation that the helmet will reduce concussions. I think their argument is flimsy. The second is that because of this safety they sold these helmets at a premium over normal again very flimsy and easily disputed since Trek has a wavecell helmet and equivalent MIPS helmet at the same price of around $100 so not at a premium price. Again as noted above the helmet in question is a high end model and the price is in line with the competition. It will be interesting to see how far this one goes but I think Trek can swat this one down in a hurry.

you can read the full complaint here:
https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-alleges-treks-concussion-prevention-claims-for-bontrager-wavecel-bike-helmets-no-more-than-a-marketing-tool

This is exactly what will happen. Trek Wavecell helmet purchasers will get $10 off their next Trek purchase, not even cash, if my prediction.

I don't believe the lead plaintiff was actually injured but is instead claiming false advertising. What the lawsuit is saying is that the helmet isn't as safe as claimed. I don't see much of a monetary claim based on that, particularly for an item that costs around $150.

I'd like to see exactly where this "40 times better" number came from. Where was it stated, who stated it, and what was the context?

Exactly. Platintiff's lawyers strike again!

Plaintiff has a marginal but non-frivolous deceptive business practices claim. Damages are actual monetary or $50, whichever is higher. Plaintiffs' attorney is entitled to "reasonable fees," which won't be much.

The claim is effectively that Trek claims this will reduce concussions, and whether it will actually do so is unknowable. Courts don't really like indulging in these sorts of epistemological debates but we'll see I guess.

It does not meet pleading standards for the fraud claim, it will be dismissed.

I don't really see how this gets class-certified while depending on a New York state law cause of action. Usually one would tie that up with a federal cause of action. Beyond that, the link between concussion prevention and the purchase is not so obvious to me that it follows that anyone who bought one in the states they list would be in a similar position as the nominal lead plaintiff. That's the biggest problem here on the plaintiff's side as far as I can see, but I may well be missing something.

I agree with you. I found their claims amazing, but given that it couldn't be worse than other helmets, I bought one on the basis of the claims. If they are not true, I was misled. This was not a "mere puff" (see Carbolic Smokeball). This was a specific claim that goes to the heart of what helmet does.

I may not have actual damages now, but these sorts of suits are useful as a deterrent.

Amazing how plaintiff lawyers compartmentalize and don't think at all about what their contingency fees might buy:



Joe Rice owns biggest yacht in harbor.



Read more here: https://www.islandpacket.com/...4.html#storylink=cpy

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev