The Good Feet Store has faced one federal class action lawsuit, filed in 2019, which was voluntarily dismissed a few months later without a public explanation. Separately, in August 2025 the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs found that the chain’s pain-relief advertising was not backed by reliable clinical evidence, and the company agreed to pull the challenged claims. Consumer complaints about pricing and a strict no-refund policy have continued through the Better Business Bureau.
The 2019 Class Action: Sisk v. Dr.’s Own
In October 2019, Renee Sisk filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Dr.’s Own, Inc. and Good Feet Worldwide LLC. The case, Sisk v. Dr.’s Own, Inc. (No. 3:19-cv-02079), was brought by San Diego firm Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of purchasers from the prior four years and a North Carolina subclass.1TINA.org. Sisk v. Dr.’s Own and Good Feet Complaint
Sisk said she paid $965 for an orthotic system at a North Carolina store and was later told by her physician to stop using it because it risked causing permanent injury. The complaint alleged more than $5 million in controversy and invoked North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act along with California’s Unfair Competition Law.1TINA.org. Sisk v. Dr.’s Own and Good Feet Complaint
What the Complaint Alleged
The lawsuit grouped its claims into several categories of deception. It alleged that Good Feet marketed mass-produced insoles as “Personalized Fit” and “Custom Fit for Comfort” products when the company actually stocked a limited range of prefabricated sizes. It alleged that the company’s advertising promised relief from arthritis, plantar fasciitis, metatarsalgia, and knee, hip, and back pain, and claimed the insoles “exercise and strengthen” muscles, tendons, and ligaments, without substantiation.
The complaint also took aim at the sales floor. Employees carried the title “Arch Support Specialists” and stores displayed skeletal models, which Sisk argued created a misleading impression of medical expertise. By having those employees identify sources of pain and recommend orthotic products, the suit argued, Good Feet was engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine under both North Carolina and California law.1TINA.org. Sisk v. Dr.’s Own and Good Feet Complaint
Two other allegations stood out. The complaint said Good Feet’s “Absolutely no obligation” marketing masked a strict no-refund policy, and that partial refunds of half the purchase price were offered only if a customer signed a non-disclosure agreement and a release of claims. It also alleged the company steered customers toward CareCredit financing at interest rates as high as 26.99% and was financially rewarded for each account opened.1TINA.org. Sisk v. Dr.’s Own and Good Feet Complaint
How the Case Ended
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in January 2020, about three months after filing. Dismissal with prejudice bars Sisk from refiling the same claims. The reasons have not been publicly disclosed, so it is not clear from the record whether the parties reached a private settlement.2TINA.org. Good Feet Orthotics Class Action
No other class action against Good Feet has surfaced in the available record, and no state attorney general enforcement action has been reported.
The 2025 NAD Ruling on Pain-Relief Claims
In August 2025, the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs concluded a review of Good Feet’s advertising after picking up the case through routine marketplace monitoring rather than a competitor challenge or consumer complaint.3BBB National Programs. NAD Decision: Good Feet
NAD flagged three types of claims about the “Arch Support System”:
- Express claims that the product is “clinically proven to provide significant pain relief.”
- The tagline that the product is engineered to “help you live the life you love without pain.”
- Customer testimonials stating that the arch supports “instantly or completely eliminated pain and foot problems.”
Good Feet defended the advertising with clinical studies. NAD found those studies “insufficiently reliable” because they were not double-blinded, randomized, or controlled, and they relied on participants’ self-reported pain levels.4Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. The Ad Standard Monthly Update – September 2025 NAD recommended that the company discontinue the challenged claims and testimonials, and Good Feet said it “will comply with NAD’s recommendations.”3BBB National Programs. NAD Decision: Good Feet
NAD decisions are not court orders, but companies that refuse to comply can be referred to the Federal Trade Commission for potential enforcement. Good Feet’s agreement to comply means it committed to pulling or modifying the specific claims NAD identified.
Ongoing Consumer Complaints and the No-Refund Policy
Even without an active class action, Good Feet has drawn steady complaints through the Better Business Bureau, and many of them track the themes in the Sisk case. The Portland, Oregon, location logged 120 complaints in three years, dominated by product and service disputes. A San Diego corporate profile shows 36 complaints, and a Cheektowaga, New York, profile shows 21.5BBB. The Good Feet Store Portland Complaints6BBB. The Good Feet Store San Diego Complaints7BBB. The Good Feet Store Cheektowaga Complaints
Customers frequently say they learned about the no-refund policy only after paying, or that it was buried in paperwork signed during a high-pressure fitting. Reported costs vary. Some consumers describe paying $1,400 to $3,000 for a multi-piece “system,” and individual accounts describe totals above $4,000.7BBB. The Good Feet Store Cheektowaga Complaints5BBB. The Good Feet Store Portland Complaints
Good Feet’s position is that its arch supports are “personal-use items” not eligible for return, and that its specialists are trained to review the exchange-only policy on request. In BBB responses, the company usually offers a refit or exchange. When complaints escalate, some locations have issued partial or full refunds as good-faith gestures, though this happens inconsistently.7BBB. The Good Feet Store Cheektowaga Complaints
What Podiatrists Have Said About the Products
Licensed podiatrists have publicly criticized both the price and the design of Good Feet’s insoles. Dr. Joel Foster, a board-certified podiatrist in the Kansas City area, has said his patients report spending between $1,200 and nearly $5,000 on what he describes as prefabricated, off-the-shelf products. He noted that the store encourages buying multiple pairs for different activities when a single well-designed orthotic should work across settings. He charges $375 for custom orthotics molded to a patient’s foot, and quality over-the-counter alternatives from established brands run $50 to $85.8Joel Foster DPM. Podiatrist’s Honest Review of the Good Feet Store
Dr. Larry Huppin, a Seattle-area podiatrist, has described Good Feet’s arch supports as providing “very little support of the mid-portion of the arch” and called them “inferior” to over-the-counter options from brands like PowerStep and Superfeet that cost up to ten times less.9Foot & Ankle Center of Washington. Good Feet Store Reviews Both podiatrists have said Good Feet’s “Arch Support Specialists” lack formal medical training and are not qualified to diagnose the underlying causes of foot pain, which can include stress fractures and tendon tears.
Good Feet’s own website lists its arch supports at $399 to $599 per pair, and attributes the price to proprietary research, a medical-grade polymer blend, the in-store fitting process, and a lifetime limited warranty.10Good Feet. How Much Do Good Feet Arch Supports Cost The higher totals consumers report reflect multi-piece “systems” that bundle several inserts and accessories into one purchase.
If You Already Bought From Good Feet
There is no active class action to join. The Sisk case ended in January 2020 with a dismissal that bars refiling of those claims by that plaintiff, and no successor lawsuit has been reported. The 2025 NAD ruling is not a consumer refund program; it addresses only how Good Feet may advertise going forward.
Consumers who feel misled have generally taken one of a few paths reflected in the record: filing a complaint with the BBB, requesting an exchange or refit under the company’s stated policy, or pushing for a good-faith partial or full refund through the complaint process. Reading the paperwork signed at the point of sale matters, because it typically contains the no-refund and exchange-only terms that the company relies on when denying returns.