One of the most talked-about consumer disputes of the year has been the lawsuit against On Holding AG, the Swiss sneaker company renowned for its precise engineering and minimalist design. Its renowned CloudTec sneakers, which promise the sensation of “running on clouds,” are at the center of this legal dispute. However, disgruntled customers claim that the shoes actually deliver a “embarrassing and noisy squeak” with every step.
The U.S. District Court in Oregon is the venue for the class-action lawsuit, which alleges that On’s patented cushioning system emits a high-pitched squeak that causes wearers to feel uncomfortable and self-conscious in public places. Plaintiffs claim that what ought to have been a sign of creativity and performance has instead become a $200 source of social shame.
Consumers claim that the problem isn’t specific to one model. According to reports, the flaw is present in several versions, including Cloud 5, Cloud 6, Cloudmonster, and Cloudrunner. The shoes, which are advertised as being incredibly comfortable and technologically sophisticated, start making a sound that gets louder over time, according to the complaint. The squeak became unbearable for nurses, athletes, and professionals who walk for extended periods of time, turning a reliable brand into a conversation starter.
On – Company Information
| Company Name | On Holding AG |
|---|---|
| Founded | January 2010 |
| Founders | Olivier Bernhard, Caspar Coppetti, David Allemann |
| Headquarters | Zürich, Switzerland |
| Industry | Sportswear, Footwear |
| Key Products | CloudTec Running Shoes – Cloud, Cloudmonster, Cloudrunner, Cloudsurfer |
| Stock Exchange | NYSE: ONON |
| Market Cap (Approx.) | $10 billion |
| Endorser | Roger Federer (Investor & Brand Partner) |
| Official Website | https://www.on.com |
The lawsuit charges On with breach of warranty and misleading marketing. The plaintiffs claim that the company did not provide refunds or replacements even though it was aware of the issue. It conveniently excluded the defect from warranty coverage by classifying it as “normal wear and tear.” Many customers were left with shoes they couldn’t wear or return without feeling ashamed as a result of this policy.
On’s silence has been strikingly apparent. The business has opted to wait for the legal proceedings to conclude rather than release a statement, even though it has been widely covered by media outlets like the BBC, NBC, and Bloomberg. Silence, however, rarely serves a strategic purpose in an era of instant feedback; rather, it frequently exacerbates annoyance. Customers have posted about their difficulties on social media sites like Reddit and TikTok, offering makeshift “fixes” that include petroleum jelly, baby powder, and even coconut oil. One user commented that the noise “could make a librarian faint,” while another nurse joked that her shoes “squeak louder than a hospital cart.”
These embarrassing and amusing anecdotes have heightened a larger discussion about brand trust. On, which positions itself as a high-end brand backed by scientific research and data-driven design, is now charged with disregarding the very feedback that characterizes contemporary customer relationships. For a business that takes pride in accuracy and performance, this discrepancy seems especially ironic.
The timing of the problem is what makes it more confusing. Direct-to-consumer sales and the overwhelming success of models like the Cloudmonster and Cloudsurfer are credited with the company’s recent record quarterly earnings. However, the lawsuit specifically names these shoes. The paradox of celebrating record sales while dealing with a defect scandal serves as an example of how success can occasionally surpass quality control.
According to industry experts, On’s brand identity may suffer the most from the lawsuit. On’s appeal stems from exclusivity and engineering prowess, in contrast to mass-market competitors like Nike or Adidas, which can withstand quality disputes due to their sheer size. Customers who purchase an On shoe are purchasing confidence in addition to comfort. No matter how insignificant it may seem, a squeak ruins that promise.
Some analysts contend that the case teaches brands founded on technological arrogance a valuable lesson in humility. The sound at the heart of this argument is produced by On’s CloudTec technology, which is remarkably effective at cushioning but may also cause friction between layers due to its hollow pods that compress and expand with movement. Customers refer to it as a deal-breaker, while engineers may consider it a quirk in the design.
Another level of intrigue is added by the company’s celebrity partnership with Roger Federer. Federer’s investment was intended to give On’s image legitimacy and refinement. His name came to represent Swiss artistry and subtle brilliance. But that image could be damaged by the lawsuit. Federer probably had nothing to do with the design of the product, but partnerships and accountability are rarely separated by public opinion.
The plaintiffs, who are being represented by lawyers in Portland, contend that simple recognition or corrective actions could have greatly decreased customer annoyance. Rather, they contend that the company’s inaction shows corporate indifference, which is especially harmful in the era of consumer transparency. The squeak problem, according to one lawyer, is “a sound of neglect, not innovation.”
The tone of the lawsuit is straightforward but not spiteful. There are no serious safety concerns or claims of bodily harm. Rather, it emphasizes emotional distress, contending that the shoes’ flaw led to social and professional embarrassment. In contemporary retail, emotional fulfillment is frequently just as valuable as physical performance, making it a subtle but potent argument.
Experts in consumer rights believe that this is a turning point for product accountability. Even minor imperfections can have disproportionate consequences because luxury brands compete on experience rather than necessity. This is especially true when social media magnifies the problem and produces viral moments that damage trust more quickly than court documents can stop them.
It’s almost cinematic in its irony. A brand called “On” is now figuratively “on trial” for the very sensory experience it claimed to have perfected. Once complimenting the shoes on their weightlessness, customers now call them “noisy burdens.” The transition from aspirational product to courtroom exhibit illustrates how breaking corporate and literal silence alters perception.
Many analysts are hopeful about On’s future despite the mockery. The company’s core technology is still widely used, and its design philosophy continues to draw devoted customers. If anything, the controversy might spur especially creative advancements in customer interaction and acoustic engineering. The business’s capacity to resolve this matter openly may serve as a model for restoring confidence.
