tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post4171653729402882521..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: New Balance "Made in the USA" claims may overstate US contentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-718067344294521772022-12-29T18:45:43.847-05:002022-12-29T18:45:43.847-05:00In addition to my comments about how frivolous thi...In addition to my comments about how frivolous this lawsuit is I forgot to mention that the Plaintiff said he would not have bought the New Balance if he new they had imported parts. My main question to him would be do you wear shoes, and if so where are they made? If he wears shoes other than molded sandals that are like Okabashi then they are either imported or have some imported parts outside of some very limited "Berry Compliant" boots made for the military. There still exist a supply chain for that product because of the Berry Amendment, but that is limited to very specific and type of footwear. New Balance actually Made the model 950v2 for the military and had their own EVA machine in Boston, but that can't be scaled and so these shoes were not available to the public. https://solecollector.com/news/2018/03/new-balance-17-million-dollars-military-shoes. -- https://www.military.com/kitup/2014/09/balance-releases-running-shoe.html<br />SAS has a product that they also make for the military call the Pursuit (Men's) & Tempo (Women's) that uses a PU midsole instead of EVA, but even that shoe when sold to the public has imported parts in it. <br />https://www.sasshoes.com/mens-pursuit-lace-up-sneaker/3710.html Thanks for your coverage of this confusing and frivolous lawsuit. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11234315234280802154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-34480389341687231122022-12-29T18:24:03.624-05:002022-12-29T18:24:03.624-05:00The problem with all of this discussion is that si...The problem with all of this discussion is that since the supply chain for footwear especially athletic shoes has gone off shore and that most athletic shoes have literally anywhere from 50 to 100+ parts in making the product it is essentially impossible to meet the FTC standard in this product category. Do we punish the one of 2 companies trying to keep the industry here in the USA and maybe build the supply chain back over time, or do we reward the companies that are exclusively off shore by taking away a competitor trying to make the product in the USA? Instead of a stick, why don't we as a country use the carrot approach when encouraging reshoring? In this case maybe offer a tax credit for some company to open a volume EVA factory in the USA as that is the on crucial part of an athletic shoe that is currently not made in USA in any scale. A company that wants to Make something on a small scale can usually get close to "Substantially All," but like the watch industry our requirements for being able the make a USA Made claim is essentially impossible! Why do we punish our companies with a mainly times unattainable standard for a "Made in USA claim?? It makes no sense! We import Swiss Made watches that wouldn't qualify as USA Made, but they are congratulated instead of criticized! Footwear is the same, as we paise the Europeans (Italy, Spain etc.) for the great products that are made there, but again would not meet our ridiculous FTC standard!!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11234315234280802154noreply@blogger.com