Trainers Squeak: A Legal Battle

The Squeaky Secret: Why On's 'Cloud' Trainers Are Facing a Legal Storm

The Swiss brand On has carved a formidable niche in the athletic footwear market. Its trainers, instantly recognisable by their unique, hole-punched soles, adorn the feet of athletes and style-conscious urbanites alike. With tennis legend Roger Federer as a key investor and collaborator, the company projects an image of precision, performance, and premium quality. However, a growing chorus of discontent threatens this carefully curated reputation. A group of American customers has initiated a class-action lawsuit, claiming the brand’s popular and expensive trainers develop an unmistakable and deeply awkward sound. The very technology advertised as creating a cloud-like experience is, according to the legal filing, causing a noisy nuisance on the ground.

A Swiss Success Story

On AG officially began its journey in Zürich, Switzerland, back in 2010. The company was the brainchild of former professional athlete Olivier Bernhard, who partnered with his friends David Allemann and Caspar Coppetti. Their shared ambition was to engineer a shoe that would transform the experience of running. They sought to create a product that offered a soft landing followed by a firm, explosive take-off. This concept quickly gained traction, and the brand experienced a meteoric rise. Its appeal broadened beyond elite runners to include everyday consumers who prized both comfort and design. A major turning point arrived in 2019 when Roger Federer joined not just as a face for the brand, but as an entrepreneur and partner, further cementing its status in the competitive sportswear world.

The 'Running on Clouds' Promise

Central to the brand's identity and product line is its patented “CloudTec” technology. This innovation is visually striking, featuring a series of hollow pods, or “Clouds,” on the footwear's outsole. The company explains that these elements are engineered to cushion the foot upon impact by compressing both vertically and horizontally. After compression, the pods become firm, providing a solid foundation for a powerful push-off. The intended result is a significant reduction in muscle fatigue. This advanced system is a key element of the trainers' premium price tag, which is often around the £150 mark, promising a feeling akin to 'running on clouds'.

When Clouds Turn Stormy

The core of the issue for many customers lies in an unintended acoustic side effect of the CloudTec design. Wearers report that, after a period of use, the shoes begin to produce a loud and persistent squeaking sound. This noise is frequently attributed to small stones, grit, or moisture becoming trapped inside the open channels and hollow pods of the sole. With each step, the friction and compression create an audible squeak, which some have likened to the sound of a dog's chew toy. The problem is not merely a minor annoyance; in quiet settings such as an office, a library, or a hospital ward, the sound becomes a source of significant embarrassment for the wearer.

The Legal Challenge Unfolds

Frustration over the noise has now escalated into formal legal action. Formal legal proceedings began on 9 October, with a class-action suit filed in a federal court within Oregon. The plaintiffs leading the case allege that the company has engaged in deceptive marketing practices. Their argument is built on the claim that a sensible person would not choose to pay such a high price for footwear if they knew it was prone to developing such a disruptive defect. The legal filing contends that the shoes become effectively unwearable in many everyday situations. Consequently, the aggrieved customers are seeking full refunds and have also requested other damages.

Voices from the Ground

The lawsuit gives a formal voice to a wave of complaints that have been circulating on the internet for some time. Online hubs, including Reddit and TikTok, now host countless threads and videos from disgruntled On customers. In these online communities, users share their frustrating experiences with the noisy footwear and exchange advice on potential remedies. A sense of shared disappointment is palpable, as many were initially drawn to the brand's reputation for Swiss engineering and quality. These digital forums are filled with anecdotal evidence that suggests the squeaking is not an isolated issue but a widespread problem affecting multiple models in the On catalogue.

A Catalogue of DIY Fixes

The online discussions have also become a hub for inventive, if often desperate, do-it-yourself solutions. Owners of the squeaky trainers have experimented with a wide array of household products in an attempt to silence the noise. Some of the most frequent suggestions involve the use of coconut oil, WD-40, or baby powder directly into the channels of the sole. Others recommend meticulously cleaning the pods with high-pressure water picks or compressed air to dislodge any trapped debris. The fact that customers feel compelled to undertake such regular and elaborate maintenance on their expensive footwear underscores the depth of their frustration with the product's performance.

A Nurse's Nightmare

The problem has been particularly acute for professionals who spend long hours on their feet in quiet environments, most notably those in the healthcare sector. Nurses, doctors, and other medical staff often favour On trainers for the comfort and support they provide during gruelling shifts. However, the squeaking transforms this comfort into a professional liability. Walking through quiet hospital corridors, the noise can be disruptive to resting patients and undermine the sterile, focused atmosphere. The sound draws unwanted attention and has become a source of professional embarrassment, forcing many healthcare workers to abandon their expensive shoes for quieter alternatives.

The Company's Quiet Stance

In the face of these escalating complaints and the formal lawsuit, On has remained publicly silent. The company has chosen not to address the specific allegations outlined in the legal filing. This official reticence is mirrored in the experiences outlined by the legal challengers. They assert that their efforts to resolve the problem directly with the business failed, and the complaint states they were not allowed to send back the footwear or receive a refund after the noise became apparent. This contrast between the loud dissatisfaction of its customers and the quiet posture of the corporation has only served to amplify the controversy.

Federer's Golden Touch

Roger Federer’s association with On is a cornerstone of the brand’s global marketing strategy. Since joining the team in 2019, he has been more than a simple ambassador; he is an active partner who has collaborated on product development, including his own signature lifestyle collection, “The Roger.” His personal brand is synonymous with excellence, precision, and a quiet, dignified professionalism. The current controversy over a loud and purportedly flawed product stands in stark opposition to the values Federer represents. The situation raises questions about the potential for reputational damage, not just for the shoe company, but for the celebrated athlete so closely linked to its identity.

A Market Powerhouse

The legal troubles and customer complaints stand in sharp contrast to On's formidable financial performance. The company has consistently reported impressive growth, frequently exceeding market expectations. Its recent quarterly earnings were bolstered by a significant increase in direct-to-consumer sales, indicating strong demand for its products. Ironically, the company has previously credited styles like its Cloudsurfer and Cloudmonster, both of which have been mentioned in user complaints, as major contributors to its sales success. This creates a paradox where the very products driving record revenue are also the source of a growing reputational crisis.

The Science of the Squeak

The technical cause of the notorious squeak appears to be rooted in the fundamental design of the CloudTec sole. The open construction, while effective for cushioning, creates a perfect trap for small debris. When tiny pebbles, grit, sand, or even water work their way into the hollow pods, they can rub against the rubber interior of the sole. The repeated compression and decompression of each step generates friction, which produces the audible squeaking or crunching sound. While all shoes can occasionally trap a stone, the specific architecture of the On sole seems to make it uniquely susceptible to this persistent and noisy problem.

Deceptive by Design?

The allegation of "deceptive marketing" is a central pillar of the class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that On's advertising campaigns and product descriptions create a set of expectations that the shoes fail to meet. The branding is built around concepts of silent, effortless movement and a cloud-like experience. The reality of a loud, mechanical squeak directly contradicts these carefully crafted marketing messages. The legal question will be whether this discrepancy constitutes a form of deception under consumer protection laws, and whether the company was aware of the potential for the noise issue yet continued to market the shoes without a disclaimer.

The Burden of Proof

For the lawsuit to succeed as a class action, the plaintiffs must overcome several significant legal hurdles. Their legal team will need to demonstrate to the court that the squeaking is a consistent and widespread defect inherent in the shoe's design, rather than a problem affecting only a few isolated pairs. They must successfully argue for the certification of a "class" of all affected customers in a specific jurisdiction. On the other side, On's defence will likely argue that the noise is a result of normal wear and tear, improper use, or a failure by the owner to properly maintain the shoes, rather than a fundamental flaw in their construction.

A Brand at a Crossroads

This controversy could represent a critical moment for the On brand. In the highly competitive and image-conscious market for premium athletic footwear, reputation is a priceless asset. The ongoing lawsuit, coupled with the viral spread of negative customer experiences online, has the potential to inflict lasting damage on consumer trust. Competitors will undoubtedly be watching closely, ready to capitalize on any perceived weakness. The episode serves as a powerful reminder that in the digital age, product flaws can no longer be quietly managed, and a brand's response to customer feedback is scrutinized on a global scale.

The Quest for a Quiet Step

The sheer ingenuity of the DIY fixes circulating online highlights the core failure of the product to meet a basic user expectation: that a shoe should not be a source of constant noise. Consumers should not have to resort to using kitchen oils or workshop lubricants to make their expensive footwear usable for its intended purpose. The fact that these remedies are often only temporary, with the squeak returning once the lubricant wears off or new debris enters the sole, adds to the sense of a flawed design. The situation has moved beyond a simple quality control issue to a fundamental question about the practicality of the signature CloudTec technology.

Beyond the Courtroom

The ultimate resolution of this noisy affair remains uncertain. On could decide to settle the lawsuit, which might involve offering refunds, replacement products, or compensation to a defined class of customers. A victory in court for the company would be a legal vindication, but it would not silence the chorus of unhappy consumers online. Perhaps the most significant outcome will be seen in future product development. The company may be forced to redesign the CloudTec sole to make it a closed system, preventing debris from entering in the first place. Whether through legal pressure or market demand, the quest for a genuinely quiet cloud has become a central challenge for the Swiss brand.