In what the court described as “a shoe shrinking croc-nundrum,” a court in the Northern District of California recently granted summary judgment to Crocs Inc in a false advertising claim, where class certification had already been denied. Martha Valentine et al., v. Crocs, Inc., 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (May 19, 2025).
The plaintiff, after purchasing Crocs shoes through a retailer, had accused the manufacturer of falsely advertising their shoes as fit for specific environmental conditions that ultimately caused the purchased shoes to shrink. She asserted a variety of false advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty claims.
On the breach of warranty claims, the court found that, although the defendant had “present[ed] visual images of the Crocs shoes set in certain surroundings,” they had “made no explicit guarantees.” The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a size representation at the time of purchase “constitutes a promise of size stability in summer temperatures and environments.” The court also concluded that any alleged implied warranties were not relevant because there was no vertical privity – the plaintiff had purchased the shoes from an independent retailer.
The court granted summary judgment on the fraud-related claims because “no reasonable jury could find that the gardening advertisement or omissions regarding potential shrinkage were a substantial factor to Plaintiff’s purchasing decision of the at-issue shoes.” The court found insufficient the plaintiff’s claims that she had seen the advertisement and that it “stuck in her mind when she made her many purchases.” The court held that more direct causation for the at-issue purchase would have been needed for the claim to survive.
This decision confirms that a putative false advertising class action should not succeed, even on an individual basis, without meaningful evidence of both actual misrepresentations and reliance by the named plaintiff.