heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
They should make a TRU SPEC version of their sticks. They could charge a little more to give it an exclusive feel.
What sort of grown adult is cretinous enough to buy a racket on the basis that they believe a professional uses it?
Unlike with car brakes and bad air, nobody gets injured nor dies because the racquet they play with is not exactly the same as their favorite pro's. That's the big difference. You have to prove injury to the plaintiff.Bad idea. It is the companies which need to learn how to sell without lying. Asking people not to buy is an old and failed argument. Car brakes failed? Hey we didn't say in writing that they actually work, why don't you just buy another car? Oh wait, you are handicapped now. Sorry about that.
Can't breathe the air close to our factory? Why don't you just move? There is no right to breathe in the Constitution (but we think there is a right for us to lie).
And no one is getting rich here other than cheats on the corporate boards.
Nothing may come out of this lawsuit, but if companies don't lie again, that is an achievement by itself.
It is a myth that industry suffers because of this. Actually, other ethical businesses which are now suppressed will have a chance to compete.
Unlike with car brakes and bad air, nobody gets injured nor dies because the racquet they play with is not exactly the same as their favorite pro's. That's the big difference. You have to prove injury to the plaintiff.
So then if the plaintiff paid $199 for her racquet and she claims she would have paid nothing if she had known Federer doesn't actually use the same racquet (the least amount she could possibly claim), then the most she should hope to gain if she wins the lawsuit is $199? Hardly worth the legal expense, right? Seems like bodily injury lawsuits pay much better.You don't need to prove physical injury; financial or economic injury will suffice. She bought a racquet for $XXX because she thought it was Federer's and would have paid $YYY if she had known it was not. The difference between $XXX and $YYY is her injury from the transaction.
Her issue won't be proving injury. Instead, it will be her choice of the class action vehicle and overcoming predominance concerns related to class reliance on Wilson's misrepresentation. Even then, though, there is a trend toward presuming class-wide reliance in these types of cases.
I suspect this will get certified (if it even gets that far) and Wilson will settle.
That's because it was stipulated in the sponsorship contract between the US Postal Service and Lance Armstrong's team that they would be drug free, so it was clearly a breach of contract by Armstrong. I don't think when this plaintiff bought her racquet that she signed a contract with Wilson stipulating that the racquet Wilson sold to her is exactly the same as the one Federer uses in tour matches.(note: such is the lawsuit recently joined by the US Justice Dept., initiated by the Postal Service, against Lance Armstrong for submitting false data to them about drug use. The False Claims Act facilitates such lawsuits. The Postal Service was obviously not injured in any literal sense but asserts it thought it was buying one thing (a drug free athlete) when in fact it got something else. Same deal with buying a racquet used by Roger Federer and getting something else. Such suits are not uncommon.)
I know about class actions lawsuits. I've been part of many dozens of them. My point is from the plaintiff's perspective, not the lawyers' perspective. It's hardly worth it for the plaintiff (the actual person who brought the lawsuit initially) to go through all this for $10, is it? There are always "expenses" involved with any lawsuit in time, travel, money, and stress. What if she loses? How do you know the lawyers won't charge her a dime? Have you physically seen the agreement between them?^^ Are you truly this naive about class action lawsuits??!! Plaintiffs often receive literally a few dollars each, but the suits exist because the attorneys will get a third or so of the settlement, at the judge's discretion, and that can be in the millions, hundreds of millions, maybe more. The individual plaintiffs don't have any legal expenses and only have to sign a statement to join the lawsuit, so your point about the whole thing not being worth the legal expense is merely ignorant.
So then if the plaintiff paid $199 for her racquet and she claims she would have paid nothing if she had known Federer doesn't actually use the same racquet (the least amount she could possibly claim), then the most she should hope to gain if she wins the lawsuit is $199? Hardly worth the legal expense, right? Seems like bodily injury lawsuits pay much better.
Why do you assume we're 'sticking up for' Wilson? Maybe some of us are sick of the Nanny State, litigious, hate the rich class warfare that is currently being played out? Don't like how the major racket lines market their products, don't buy them.
As I said before, demo'ing rackets is widely available; thus consumers have ample opportunity to make an informed purchase, based on their own research; the marketing spiels of the companies are worthless.
How are they "ripping me off"? I've never bought any racquets for the sole reason that I believed a pro I like uses that actual racquet.wow... so brainwashed... arguing on behalf of people who are ripping you off...
No, he doesn't. I believe Djokovic uses a custom racquet based on the old Head LM Radical MP mold, but I could be wrong. vsbabolat would know if he chimes in here.This is slightly off topic but does anyone know if Nole actually uses a Graphene Speed frame (I thought I saw somewhere that he didn't)? If not, I could see that commercial with the new graphene speed as his "secret weapon" leading some less informed players down the wrong path, too. I hope the end result of this Wilson lawsuit has a positive effect on the way racquets are marketed going forward.
This is slightly off topic but does anyone know if Nole actually uses a Graphene Speed frame (I thought I saw somewhere that he didn't)? If not, I could see that commercial with the new graphene speed as his "secret weapon" leading some less informed players down the wrong path, too. I hope the end result of this Wilson lawsuit has a positive effect on the way racquets are marketed going forward.
The incredible thing is that this thread has gone on for 16 pages. The average player doesn't need a pro-level racquet. Get over it.
What will have to happen is that the pros will have to suck it up and play with the new, "improved" models, like it or not.
And/or the pro sticks with the model he's used for more than a decade and Wilson tries to market new cosmetics every three years instead of "new" racquets. Of course, that pro won't be around for many more cycles. Best case for players is that Wilson is forced by this suit to release the actual Federer stick. And then the smart thing for them to do would be to release the same thing in a lighter model as well, without his signature. I think they'd still sell a lot of racquets, honestly this time.
All I'd ask from Wilson in the form of a "TW Best Seller" would be a Wilson player's frame with the feel of the Pro Staff Original 85 in a bigger headsize that could accommodate 95-98 users and would be easily customizable with lead--the lighter head heavy/polarized Babolat replica's are a bit too tricky to modify without an RDC machine. (I added a leather grip to the BLX 95 team and the SW jumped up enough to feel like a log--WOWZA!)
No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.I guess the idea that athletes and racquet companies shouldn't lie to people to sell products is lost on you.
If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.
No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.
You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.
If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.
No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.
You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.
If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.
I don't know why this comparison issue comes up over and over again. Your home was burgled and someone walked away with your TV is a non-issue among the world's problems. Don't you still report it to the police?
No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.
You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.
If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.
I don't think anyone is arguing about point #1. It's point #2 that's in the class actionI think there are two issues here and you only refer to one of them, i.e., not being able to acquire the exact racquet certain pros are using.
The second issue are the obvious misrepresentations certain companies make when talking about the racquets pro players are using.
Regarding the latter, when you have Wilson, Head, and even TW - represent to the public, "Djokovic's racquet of choice..." OR "Players using this racquet: (picture of Djokovic) - how is that not gross misrepresentation?
No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive. ...
... rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.
In some ways Wilson and the retailers are no different from those shady outfits selling counterfeit frames. If a fellow sells a frame not made by Wilson with Wilson graphics he's called a counterfeiter. If Wilson sells a frame that it claims is used by Federer but it's not they're no different from the counterfeiter. Both are selling products under false pretenses. Wilson and TW are effectively selling counterfeit Federer frames since the ones being sold as being used by Federer are not used by him.
Interesting. So when is the class-action lawsuit against the polyester string manufacturers coming? I think they should be sued first as the harmful effects of their products are so much more obvious, IMO.
Interesting. So when is the class-action lawsuit against the polyester string manufacturers coming? I think they should be sued first as the harmful effects of their products are so much more obvious, IMO.
[...]
If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.
What a novel idea that corporations should not be allowed to break the law.
The dichotomy for me, and I apologize that I didn't read all 18 pages so this might be a re-peat post, is this.
The person is "old" enough to file a law suit but not "mature" enough to understand that all companies have marketing license when paying an endorser.
Golf is a prime example. Make up companies? Weight loss? Camera? Bikes? I'm certain Kelly Slater's surfboard is the same spec as all other KS models.....Etc.....
I'm not disagreeing that these practices can sway some purchasing decisions, but a question to the person filing might be: what other items do you buy because of a specific endorser? And if you found out that there were "tweaks" to those items, would you sue, as well?
That's not an accurate description of the situation.
Wilson isn't claiming that Federer endorses their product. They're claiming that he uses it. Head goes even further with Djoker claiming that he uses the specific frame and derives specific benefits from it.
In both cases Wilson and Head are lying. If you read the relevant section of California law things look bleak for Wilson.
I agree that it is more than an "endorsement" issue. However, and I'm not certain of all the legal nuances but I'm not certain it is "bleak" for Wilson.
Is the injured party saying the only reason she bought a 6.1 is because Roger uses it? And that because he doesn't, she spent too much money and was then "injured"?
A quick survey of TW's Wilson selections - shows 33 current model sticks. 10 models are priced at $199, 20 are priced less and 3 are more. My point is RF stick or not, there isn't a big difference in dollar consideration versus their other models or competitors(too big to review quickly).
Is Nike next because RF's clothes and shoes are not identical to retail?
The "injury" is the entire $199, plus cost of litigation, expenses, hurt ego and sleepless nights . If Wilson told the truth, she probably wouldn't even buy a racquet. She wasn't buying it to play with it, she bought it because she thought it was the same as Fed's.I agree that it is more than an "endorsement" issue. However, and I'm not certain of all the legal nuances but I'm not certain it is "bleak" for Wilson.
Is the injured party saying the only reason she bought a 6.1 is because Roger uses it? And that because he doesn't, she spent too much money and was then "injured"?
A quick survey of TW's Wilson selections - shows 33 current model sticks. 10 models are priced at $199, 20 are priced less and 3 are more. My point is RF stick or not, there isn't a big difference in dollar consideration versus their other models or competitors(too big to review quickly).
Is Nike next because RF's clothes and shoes are not identical to retail?
So, if TW started selling frames with Wilson graphics that were not actually made by Wilson but instead made by a counterfeiter in China you'd be ok with buying them as long as they were comparably priced with frames sold by Head, Prince, etc.?
After all, according to your logic, you've suffered no damages in buying a counterfeit frame, right?
Let's take it a step further and say that the counterfeit frame doesn't match the specs of the real Wilson frame.
Wilson is selling Federer-branded frames that don't match Federer's specs. A counterfeiter is selling Wilson-branded frames that don't match Wilson's specs. No difference. Or are you appalled at the thought of being sold a product that doesn't match reality?