SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge has refused to completely end a class action complaint seeking to force the makers of Crocs to pay for allegedly failing to warn consumers its plastic foam footwear can shrink following exposure to heat and sun.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson ruled on the matter June 20. In the decision, the judge noted the plaintiffs alleged Crocs purchased between 2021 and 2024 were advertised to promote the footwear as ideal for gardening and visits to beaches and pools. Several plaintiffs said their Crocs shrunk to the extent they no longer fit despite only standard exposure to either heat or sunlight, such as on a San Diego beach or being left in a Fresno garage.
Thompson noted some plaintiffs’ failed in an attempt to intervene in other ongoing lawsuits before filing their own class complaint. Crocs moved to dismiss that complaint and strike the class allegations. However, Crocs didn’t oppose the consumers’ request she take notice of the motion they filed in the other lawsuit, docketed as Valentine v. Crocs.
Crocs sought to dismiss the class complaint because the plaintiffs’ didn’t give the company sufficient notice of the alleged defects before filing their warranty claims. Thompson noted the plaintiffs claimed Crocs knew about the shrinkage in July 2022, but agreed the plaintiffs didn’t show they were the ones who provided that notice to Crocs.
However, Thompson said the complaint adequately alleged the existence of an express warranty because Crocs’ marketing materials created the expectation the products would remain wearable when worn or left outdoors. But she said a claim based on the advertised size of the shoes and other footwear fails at this point because plaintiffs haven't shown the shoes were defective at the time of purchase.
“The complaint alleges the products fell ‘below a minimum level of quality for ordinary use as shoes’ because the products ‘shrink if exposed to ordinary amounts of sun and/or, heat,’ ” Thompson wrote. “Each plaintiff alleges that the products shrunk to the extent that the products no longer fit. Also, ‘ordinary shoes do not shrink in size (and reasonable consumers do not expect shoes to shrink).’ The court finds that these allegations sufficiently allege that the products lacked a basic degree of fitness and did not meet the minimum level of quality for similar shoes.”
Thompson denied Crocs’ motion to dismiss the implied warranty claims.
On the fraud-based claims, Thompson said the failed to include key information, including about what specific advertisements each plaintiff encountered, where they saw such materials and the extent to which the promotions were misleading. However, she did agree the complaint adequately claimed Crocs had a duty to disclose the potential for shrinkage given allegations the company had exclusive knowledge of the issue, including being “deeply familiar with the chemical properties of Croslite,” investing in product research and development and receiving customer complaints posted to the corporate website.
Thompson further said it is improper when ruling on a motion to dismiss to decide what reasonable consumers might’ve believed and to interpret Crocs’ advertising materials. As such, she would not dismiss the fraud-based claims to the extent they rely on an understanding of reasonable consumer behavior.
Regarding class certification, Thompson said the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are sufficient to confer standing and also said the fact that class certification was denied in Valentine doesn’t automatically mean the same should happen in this lawsuit. Discovery hasn’t started, she wrote, which makes striking the class allegations premature. However, she agreed with Crocs that the class period could only cover purchases dating to four years before the lawsuit began.
Finally, Thompson agreed to give the plaintiffs a chance to amend their warranty and fraud claims, finding doing so would not cause more than minimal prejudice to Crocs. However, she cautioned they could not add any new claims and any such allegations would be stricken.
The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Seth A. Safier, Marie A. McCrary, Anthony J. Patek and Kali Backer, of Gutride Safier LLP, of San Francisco.
Crocs is represented by attorneys Becca Wahlquist, Ruth Kwon, Jonathan Cooperman and Caitlin Hickey, of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, of Los Angeles and New York.
