ASICS Lawsuits: Class Actions, Trademark, Patent, and EEOC Cases

ASICS America Corporation has been the subject of a range of lawsuits, and the most active one for consumers is a December 2023 class action in California accusing the company of using inflated “original” prices at its outlet stores to fake discounts. Other notable ASICS lawsuits include a 2026 trademark suit against an Amazon reseller, a 2007 stripe-design fight with Skechers, a 2019 EEOC disability discrimination case, and a 1992 Federal Circuit patent decision that still gets cited today.

The Outlet Store False Pricing Class Action

In December 2023, California consumer Christina Calcagno sued ASICS America Corporation in San Diego Superior Court. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as case number 3:24-cv-00048.¹

The complaint alleges that ASICS tags outlet merchandise with “original” prices that are artificially inflated and then advertises discounts off those prices. The suit calls these “phantom markdowns,” arguing that the shoes, apparel, and accessories at ASICS outlets are rarely or never actually sold at the listed original prices for any meaningful period.²³

Investigations conducted by plaintiffs’ counsel in 2021 and 2022 reportedly found hundreds of items in California ASICS outlets that were “continuously discounted” and never offered at their stated original prices.²

The claims arise under California’s Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint also invokes federal regulations requiring that any advertised original price be a genuine price at which the item was regularly offered for a substantial period.¹

The proposed class covers California consumers who bought one or more products from an ASICS outlet at a discount from an advertised reference price within the applicable limitations period and who have not already received a refund or credit.²

As of mid-2026, the case remains pending. There is no publicly reported settlement, dismissal, or trial date.³⁴

The 2026 Amazon Reseller Trademark Suit

In May 2026, ASICS America filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Justdoit4less.com LLC and its operator in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 8:26-cv-01096). ASICS alleged the defendants ran an Amazon storefront called “Webzom” that sold unauthorized products bearing ASICS trademarks, with customers receiving damaged, used, or incorrect items and posting negative reviews that harmed the brand.⁵

The complaint brings claims under the federal Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, plus California common-law unfair competition and unfair and deceptive acts. As of June 2026, the defendants had been served and had received an extension to respond by early July 2026.⁶

The 2007 Skechers Stripe Design Fight

ASICS Corporation and ASICS America sued Skechers in the Central District of California in 2007 for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and false advertising. ASICS claimed that four Skechers shoe styles copied its distinctive side-stripe design.⁷

On April 25, 2007, the court denied ASICS’s request for a preliminary injunction in a 21-page opinion. The judge found “substantial” differences between the two brands’ designs and concluded that “the designs are quite different and in the marketplace the shoes appear highly dissimilar.” ASICS failed to show a likelihood of success on any of its claims.⁸

Skechers had filed its own suit against ASICS in February 2007, alleging trade libel, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relationships and seeking $100 million in punitive damages.⁹¹⁰¹¹

EEOC Disability Discrimination Case

In October 2019, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued ASICS America Corporation in the Northern District of Mississippi under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC alleged that ASICS fired a temporary worker, Shelby Orsburn, who had hearing and speech impairments, on the stated ground that it was “unsafe for her to work in the facility.” According to the agency, ASICS never engaged in the interactive process required by law to determine whether Orsburn could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation.¹²

The agency sought back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction against future discrimination. The suit followed the failure of pre-litigation conciliation between the EEOC and ASICS.¹²

Meyers v. ASICS: A Patent Precedent

In 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Meyers v. ASICS Corp., 974 F.2d 1304, a patent infringement case over three patents for therapeutic shoe sole structures. The district court had granted summary judgment to ASICS on laches (unreasonable delay in suing) and equitable estoppel.¹³

The Federal Circuit reversed. It held that the lower court had miscalculated the delay by measuring from the issue date of the earliest patent for all three, and that ASICS had not shown actual prejudice from the delay. On estoppel, the court ruled that silence alone is not the misleading conduct the defense requires, and that ASICS had not shown it was lulled into believing no suit would come. The decision remains a frequently cited authority on how laches and estoppel apply when related patents issue at different times.¹³

The Arbitration Clause That May Block Future Suits

Anyone considering a claim against ASICS should read the fine print first. The company’s terms and conditions, updated in August 2025, contain a binding arbitration clause and a class-action waiver in Section 18. Disputes are routed to informal resolution or arbitration rather than court, and consumers give up the right to join class actions. The terms state that these provisions apply retroactively to claims arising before the effective date, to the extent the law allows.¹⁴

ASICS does provide an opt-out mechanism for the arbitration and class-action waiver provisions; the steps are set out in Section 18. California law governs the terms.¹⁴

1
ClassAction.org. Calcagno v. ASICS America Corporation et al. (Complaint)
2
ClassAction.org. ASICS Facing Class Action Over Alleged Use of False Reference Prices, Fake Discounts
3
Truth in Advertising. Discounts at ASICS Outlet Stores
4
ClassAction.org. ASICS America Corporation Class Action Lawsuits
5
Bloomberg Tax. ASICS Sues Retailer Over Unauthorized Sneaker Sales on Amazon
6
PACER Monitor. Asics America Corporation v. Justdoit4less.com LLC, et al.
7
Skechers. Skechers Wins Major Victory in ASICS Lawsuit
8
SGB Online. Skechers Wins Round One; ASICS Still Sees Merit in Case
9
Skechers. Skechers Sues ASICS for Trade Libel, Unfair Competition, and Tortious Interference
10
SGB Online. Skechers USA Suit Against ASICS Dismissed
11
Skechers. Skechers Footwear to Refile Lawsuit Against ASICS
12
EEOC. ASICS America Corporation Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
13
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Meyers v. ASICS Corp., 974 F.2d 1304
14
ASICS. Terms and Conditions