BROOKLYN, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) - A class action lawsuit filed on Monday against a maker of speciality socks alleged the company falsely advertised the benefits of purchasing its product - and part of that advertising was a commercial featuring a woman experiencing "orgasmic" pleasure.
Meng Wang filed the lawsuit against Doris, Inc. and Gildan Activewear in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Doris, Inc. markets its Kushyfoot socks, tights and hosiery as having a positive impact on a person's well-being, the lawsuit said. The products come with “zigzag,” “massaging” or “3-dimensional massaging” soles that claim to offer these benefits.
Wang purchased the company's shaping tights for $7.64 and sheer knee highs for $6.99, and wore them for approximately a week, the lawsuit said. Wang alleged the socks did not provide any tension relief or additional support.
The complaint cites an advertisement that shows an "attractive and confident" woman walking in a "dramatic and sultry fashion" while moaning and uttering highly sexually charged phrases including, "That's the spot" and "so good."
"Towards the end of the commercial, the woman opens her eyes to find herself surrounded by a group of excited women fascinated with knowing her secret to feeling orgasmic on city streets; she eagerly tells them, 'Oh, it's Kushyfoot,' and distributes their products from her shopping bags to each of the women," the complaint says.
"Plaintiff Wang relied on the commercial and believed in the effectiveness and comfort of the products. To her disappointment, she found that the purchased products did not even feel different from her regular socks and tights.
"There is nothing significant about the products and their 'zigzag' or 'massage' soles that differentiates them from non-Kushyfoot sock, tights and hosiery products."
The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages, as well as class status for those who purchased the products.
Wang is represented by C.K. Lee, of the Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.
United States District Court Eastern District of New York case number 1:15-cv-00147.