Wilson Class Action Lawsuit

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by g_desilva, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. 813wilson

    813wilson Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Tampa area
    And, I was serious earlier.

    Is the issue with Wilson any different than the knowledge that Nike makes a different shoe and custom clothes for RF - but then says - "Roger's shoe of choice or Roger's shirt/shorts....?
     
  2. Velvet Ga el

    Velvet Ga el Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    362
    I've already posted this ITT, but who are you to decide how a consumer should use his or her stick? People buy products for a variety of reasons. Some buy sticks to optimize their game. Others buy sticks to look cool to their teammates/friends. Some even buy them to feel a sense of association with their favorite athletes.

    With honest marketing, a consumer can make those decisions in whatever way they wish and however non-optimal it may be. Without it, though, they may be making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.

    (At the opposite side of the spectrum, what if an advanced junior tennis player bought the stick because he needed elite performance characteristics and thought that's what he was getting because it was Fed's "racquet"? Would he be a fool as well because he got a racquet "underneath" his level?)
     
  3. 813wilson

    813wilson Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Tampa area
    I'm not saying that I decide who buys what. I am saying that, using two of your points, if she did it to look cool or associate with Roger; regardless whether he actually uses it, she would look as "cool" and as "associated" as anyone could given the fact that he is using a paint job.

    And, someone of her age and education(RN), I'd think would be beyond buying something for those reasons and, if focused on tennis, would seek advice about the best choices in racquets for her ability(ies).

    I never used the word "fool" and don't think she is.

    To your point about the advanced junior - regardless of whether Federer would be using the 6.1, it is still, by almost anyone associated with the game, considered an advanced player's racquet. It would not be underneath him at any advanced level.....
     
  4. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    Hah, that's awkward.

    Really hard to believe people don't see the issue with stuff like this:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Baseline
    No, they don't sell that same product to the public while claiming that they do so.

    Same goes for Head.

    Wilson's effectively selling counterfeit Federer frames. They claim they're the same specs as that used by Federer but as evidenced by numerous actual examples here on TT they're not the same specs.

    It's really simple. They could rectify the situation by:

    A. Stop claiming to sell the same frame as that used by Federer

    B. Actually sell the same frame as that used by Federer

    Instead Wilson and Federer choose to sell a frame that's NOT used by Federer while falsely claiming it IS used by Federer.

    Wilson is selling counterfeit frames in a way.
     
  6. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    Not true at all. Where did Wilson ever claim that the racquet they sell to the public is "the exact same specs" as the racquet that Federer uses in tournament play? I've never seen Wilson make such a claim.

    The racquet that Federer uses has different specs because Priority One customizes his stock frames with lead tape to make them into the specs he actually plays with. Anyone can buy the retail frame and customize it the same way with lead tape.

    Many people on here who have actual Federer frames have verified that the specs of the racquet that cannot be changed, such as head size, length, beam width, stiffness, string pattern, etc. are the same as the retail model.
     
  7. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    Most recreational players would not be able to play with the same exact specs that Federer actually plays with. Heck, most 5.0 level players couldn't even play their best tennis with it, let alone a 3.5 level player like this plaintiff. So is this plaintiff's argument that she wanted to buy a racquet that makes her play worse tennis but instead got a racquet than allows her to play better tennis than the one with Federer's actual specs? So this is how she was "harmed"?

    Sounds to me like she is less a victim of Wilson than a victim of the money hungry, ambulance-chasing lawyers who likely persuaded her to sue so they can make themselves millions from a class-action lawsuit.
     
  8. ups42769

    ups42769 New User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Messages:
    12
    it seems like there are two issues here: whether this case is reasonable to the posters of this forum, and whether the lady has a case. These are two very different questions. Having practiced consumer law in CA, i will say that the lady definitely has a case. CA consumer law affords the most broad protection to its citizens. It is not important that wilson say "its the exact racquet" its whether a reasoable person would belive that Wilson is saying that.

    here are the elements of misrepresentation in CA law, its just a checklist, lets go down it:
    [Name of plaintiff] claims [he/she/it] was harmed because [name of defendant] negligently misrepresented an important fact. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
    1. That [name of defendant] represented to [name of plaintiff] that an important fact was true; wilson said federer used x racquet
    2. That [name of defendant]’s representation was not true; federer does not use that racquet
    3. That [although [name of defendant] may have honestly believed that the representation was true,] [[name of defendant]/he/she] had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when [he/she] made it; wilson loses this one clearly, it knows what federed use
    4. That [name of defendant] intended that [name of plaintiff] rely on this representation; wilson clearly says federer uses this racquet to make it more likely that ppl buy it
    5. That [name of plaintiff] reasonably relied on [name of defendant]’s representation; this one may be a little grey, but if the woman is not sophisticated about tennis, likely wilson loses this
    6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and this is the toughest one because what really was the woman harmed?
    7. That [name of plaintiff]’s reliance on [name of defendant]’s representation was a substantial factor in causing [his/her/ its] harm. this also probably favors the woman

    so as you can see, the actual law says she has a case. has one, might win, might not, but has a case.
     
  9. 813wilson

    813wilson Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Tampa area
    ^^^^

    And, I'd guess that there are any number of things in life where one might have a legal case. The question is whether it is really worth it to pursue....

    And lastly - I'd love an answer to this. Is Nike set up for the same suit? Everyone knows Federer's shoes are different than retail and his kits are custom made(don't know about the shorts, but definitely the shirts).
     
  10. ups42769

    ups42769 New User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Messages:
    12
    yes i think they are, i mean, the bottom line is that if a seller of a good or service says, you are receiving x, then you receive y, then they are potentially liable for damages you have incurred because you didn't receive x.

    Don't we want this?

    It kind of reminds me of foot faults at the club level. There are 4.5 and 5.0 players who just foot fault the whole time. I call it, and ppl are lke, "close enough." well, whats "Close enough?" and you know the baseline is there for a reason, just like this law--because "close enough" is too subjective.

    And if you think the above statute is too stringent, consider there are safety valves in the test. the key is the damages part--even if all of this has happened, if no one has been injured, then the defendant isn't liable, unless its intentional or negligent and then you have the possibility for punitive damages.

    the one thing that i do not understand in this thread is why anyone would stick up for wilson? they're not doing anyone any favors here.
     
  11. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    If by doing what they're doing allows Wilson to stay in business, then it indeed benefits those of us who like to buy Wilson racquets. If by ceasing what they are doing causes people to stop buying their racquets, and thereby, causes Wilson to go out of business, who wins? Not the consumer, as now the consumer will have less choices in tennis racquets and the reduction in competition will likely cause prices to go up. People who don't care about this issue would end up having to pay more for a Babolat or Head racquet when what they really wanted was a cheaper Wilson racquet. So if Wilson loses, we all lose. I mean what does the consumer have to gain from this? A racquet that you can't even play with?
     
  12. Vlad_C

    Vlad_C Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    Canada
    ^^ WTF did I just read?? You feeling ok, mate?
     
  13. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    I'm feeling perfectly fine. And I stand by what I wrote above.

    I (and I'm sure many other tennis players) would prefer that Wilson stayed in business. Forcing Wilson out of business benefits no one and will in fact hurt consumers.
     
  14. Vlad_C

    Vlad_C Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    Canada
    I thought we were talking about getting Wilson to cease their fraudulent advertising practices.
    Are you saying that this would force them to go under?
    Nobody has a problem with Wilson selling cheap racquets, just get them to stop advertising them as Fed's racquet.
     
  15. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    If Wilson was forced to publicly announce that none of their sponsored pro players actually use the same racquets that they sell to the public at retail, don't you think a lot of people would stop buying Wilson racquets? Just like this plaintiff who claims that the ONLY reason she bought her Wilson racquet was because she thought it was the same racquet used by Federer. I'm sure there are plenty of people who bought a Wilson racquet because they thought some pro used the same racquet. So if Wilson loses half of their sales because of this, don't you think that would put them at risk of going under? Look at what's currently happening to JC Penny.
     
  16. ollinger

    ollinger Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    6,139
    I don't think I'd miss Wilson, and nobody need fear higher prices if they disappear. There is a more than sufficient number of racquet companies to keep the market competitive. In recent years we lost Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Mercury, Plymouth and others, yet car prices have gone up at a slower rate in the past decade. Having said that, no sensible person thinks a company as large as Wilson disappears as a result of settling a class action lawsuit.
     
  17. rosewall4ever

    rosewall4ever Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    501
    Thankyou for your legal insight...How exactly would the plantiff build a case of being 'harmed' from this form of misrepresention? Could this become a precedent for future forms of misrepresentaion? What would the implications be on how wilson, or any other racquet company, would conduct future 'endorsed' marketing campaigns with any pro using a specific set of specs?
     
  18. DNShade

    DNShade Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Hollywood Hills and San Luis Obispo (home of TW)
    Just FYI -- if Wilson looses the case etc -- ALL companies will therefore be forced to admit that they do the same thing and they will have to comply and change their fraudulent advertising practices or they will be wide open to other similar cases -- not just Wilson. And with precedent it will be a much easier case to make. So don't worry about Wilson they will be just fine.

    But perhaps we will get rid of this nefarious PJ practice and it will be much better for the consumer all around. That's what everyone should want right?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2013
  19. yonexRx32

    yonexRx32 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Speak for yourself. Just because you don't know the handle from the head of a racket doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept questionable sales tactics.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2013
  20. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    Arkansas
    These statements are ridiculous. You are claiming that the end justifies the means. No. It is not alright for companies to lie to sell more product. You are also committing a false dilemma and a slippy slope argument; the notion that if Wilson tells the truth they will go out of business. I do respect that will you stand behind what you believe even when it is the paramount of stupidity.

    -SF
     
  21. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    Those are all just brands, not companies. Can you imagine if GM went out of business and the effect it would have on the car market? Because that's how big Wilson is in the tennis racquet market.

    And it depends on if Wilson settles with or without admitting wrongdoing.
     
  22. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    If the majority of customers could play with Federer's actual specs, Wilson would have put it out on the market already. I mean it doesn't cost them anymore to put out Federer's actual specs versus specs that most of their customers can actually play with. The reason they don't is because they would lose a lot of sales since most customers would not be able to play with it. It's the same reason why Head doesn't sell Djokovic's nor Murray's actual specs. How many recreational players can play with racquets with swingweights 360 to 380? Heck, many people on this board complain even a low swingweight of 330 is already too heavy for them to swing.
     
  23. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    It's called "MARKETING". It's done every day. All companies do it. And, no, that body spray is not going to make supermodels fall all over for you. :)
     
  24. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    Arkansas
    You cannot equate GM and it's effect on the car market ( american car market / Detroit economics) and the racquet market. That is stupid. Wilson will not go out of business for telling the truth. Would negative press effect sales? In some way yes. For perspective understand that (according to Wikipedia) Wilson Sports has about 1,600 employees while GM has 202,000. Wilson is big in Tennis and holds its own in other sports. it is not even the biggest when it comes to sports racquets anyway. Yonex has badminton (huge), Tennis and Soft Tennis.

    If for some reason Wilson goes bankrupt then Amer Sports at worse would sell it off to another conglomeration. Big ****ing deal.
     
  25. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Definition of marketing: Marketing is the process of communicating the value of a product or service to customers, for the purpose of selling the product or service. / The action or business of promoting and selling products or services.

    Definition of a lie: A lie is a intentionally false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth.

    You are corrupt in your reasoning.
     
  26. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    Do you actually think that every celebrity that endorses a product actually uses that product? How old are you?
     
  27. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Old enough to know that Wilson is not going to go out of business and cause the racquet market to crash if they are forced to tell the truth. But a 12 yearold can figure that out simply enough.

    -SF
     
  28. swedenparty

    swedenparty Rookie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    235
    With all the respect, it's ok to use a tweaked version of the racket, balance, weight, sw...but if everything is different...like material, flexibility,... they shouldn't advertise it as "Federer's racket".

    Djokovic's racket probably would be a better example of a scam.
     
  29. tennis_balla

    tennis_balla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,667
    Location:
    Here and There
    Come on, it won't bring Wilson down are you nuts? Look at what happened with Nike and that golf ball Nike claimed Tiger used but didn't. People complaining and sued I believe and now that ball is available.

    What is the end results? Wannabes get to play with the same ball Tiger has, they hardly notice a difference although they claim its the greatest ball they've ever played with I'm sure and they still suck.

    In this day and age if someone is so gullible as to believe everything they read like that lady, then she's an idiot. I don't agree its perfectly legit for these companies to do this, however it won't make one lick of a difference. 99% of people cannot play with the specs the pros have on their rackets. The racket companies make them public friendly you can say. If someone is buying a tennis racket just because so and so uses it and not because its the correct racket for them, well they deserve to be fooled.
     
  30. Overdrive

    Overdrive Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,301
    Location:
    Garden of Gethsemane
    Wait a minute, isn't Federer's racquet a custom mold with a specific set-up that is kept secret by P1?

    If so, it is impossible for Wilson to meet the demands of rec players wanting 'the Roger Federer experience'... Wouldn't they be losing money by making hundreds to thousands of custom molds? :lol:

    This can one of the only exceptions for a PJ. If rec players knew that their favorite player was playing with a PC600, Head could just re-issue it (then again the set-up would be different).
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013
  31. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,690
    Huh? Even if Federer's actual racquet is a custom mold (which it is not), why would Wilson lose money by cranking out thousands of racquets using this mold? It's not like they need to make a new mold, they already have it.
     
  32. MAXXply

    MAXXply Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    Sydney
    ^^ 1400+ posts over 5yrs vs your 3200+ in 9 months. Who's the one around here who argues for the sake of arguing? Your HOF status was only bestowed for the frequency with which you throw around the lazy words 'fail' and 'troll'.
     
  33. Overdrive

    Overdrive Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,301
    Location:
    Garden of Gethsemane
    I only do that on weekdays.
     
  34. Lefty5

    Lefty5 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,670
    I can't wait for the outcome of this lawsuit. Tired of the lies!!!!
     
  35. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,866
    I think you'll be disappointed in the outcome.
     
  36. MAX PLY

    MAX PLY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,714
    This thread is too funny. It reminds me of a famous scene from Casablanca:

    Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

    Captain Renault:
    I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
    [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

    Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

    [aloud]

    Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!


    For all of those who think that this suit will compel Wilson (and by implication, other racquet companies) to market frames with the exact specs as the pros, they will have to find another way to get their level up to 7.0. I suspect Wilson may win outright on summary judgement but even if there is a settlement, the class members may get a coupon for $10 (maybe less) off their next Wilson racquet purchase and Wilson may have to add a disclaimer that says pro frames are sometimes modified to a pro's proprietary specifications and/or just state in the future that [Joe Pro] plays and endorses [Wilson] products.

    The plaintiffs' bar does appreciate the outrage however and the new pools they can build from the actual cash that Wilson will have to pay them (which by the way, will be reflected in the price of Wilson products). Plus, the worst part is that those lawyers speaking truth to power are probably golfers anyway.

    Ah yes, the sweet taste of vindication (more taste, less filling).
     
  37. MarTennis

    MarTennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    277
    Pretty slick lawyer. No jury is going to understand the marketing vagaries of tennis companies or the idiosyncracies of the athletes. They do understand bait and switch. Settle it.
     
  38. BLX_Andy

    BLX_Andy Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Always at the Baseline, AZ
    If she doesn't want it I'll take the racquet :)
     
  39. Hollywood2

    Hollywood2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Re.

    This lawsuit has been dismissed because it didn't meet the threshold of class action amount.

    Don't know about any further ones.

    Cheers.
     
  40. MachiA.

    MachiA. Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Still first world, but moving south
    They lie to kids to make them buy "the sticks of their heros".

    It is cheap and disgusting.

    KR
     
  41. vsbabolat

    vsbabolat Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,879
    That's a true statement. Some companies are much worse than others too.
     
  42. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,436
    they will probably just put a small disclaimer on the commercial that the actual racket the star is using might differ.
     
  43. High street sw19

    High street sw19 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Off Church road
    I have not read all of these mails because I dont have time, but there are some punters on here that are saying P1? know all the lay ups and production "secrets" this is rubbish, they are a independent customiser, no more than Jay Schweid or Bosworth were in their day....if they are know all god's perhaps they should market their own products?
    Top Players always have and always will use SMU factory product, all of it from Racquet's to Shoes to clothing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2013
  44. Arthuro

    Arthuro Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    594
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2013
  45. vsbabolat

    vsbabolat Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,879
    Bosworth was much more than a customizer. He designed racquets too for the companies and was consulted. Nate worked for Bosworth. P1 knows whats going on with the racquets of their clients.
     
  46. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,924
    Although I'm all for 'truth in advertising' this lawsuit is frivilous and uninteresting in the extreme, both as a consumer rights and legal issue.
     
  47. MachiA.

    MachiA. Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Still first world, but moving south
    You contradict yourself in one sentence.

    Kids are manipulated into buying rackets with the promise these sticks are used by their "heros".

    Only the kids who are painting the sticks in China are knowing the truth!

    The companies should pay for a good cause.

    KR
     
  48. West Coast Ace

    West Coast Ace G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,704
    Location:
    So Cal
    Too lazy to read reviews and demo?

    Thanks for the update. Will be interesting to see if they refile. I'm guessing no. The legal team would see $$$$$$ at a class action; an individual, not so much (especially with this weak case). Not like she lost use of her arm because of Wilson's product.

    I don't like marketing people either; but if you do your homework you can ignore their silliness and make your own informed decision.
     
  49. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,590
    If these "kids" didn't buy an endorsed racquet, they'd buy another racquet, and the endorsed racquets generally are not more expensive (cheaper, actually, than the typical snowshoe racquet). So the soft underbelly of this thing is that nobody gets burned.
     
  50. MachiA.

    MachiA. Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Still first world, but moving south
    They lie to kids to get their money.

    A lot is "burned".

    A company which does not lie to kids makes less money.

    Nothing will change,
    legislative power is in the hands of the industry.

    The best thing is, they have such a good PR, that people like you are thinking:
    "Lying to kids for stealing their money is fine." :)

    KR
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2013

Share This Page