Give this class action suit the boot

When I think LL Bean boots, this is what comes to mind:

LL Bean Duck Boots.

And this being New England, and Boston not exactly being the fashion capital of the world, I tend to see them around. Maybe not as often as I used to. But I still see them around.

I'm a big LL Bean fan. I wear their turtle necks. I wear their T's. I wear their khakis. I wear their sweats. I wear their parkas. I wear their PJs. I wear their rain jackets. I wear their jeans. Not that I work out, but I wear their workout pants. I wear their fleeces. I tote their tote bags.

What I don't wear is their boots.

Decades ago, I did have a pair of the low-cut version of the Duck Boots. Duck Shoes. I got them to wear on rainy days. Alas, I found them incredibly heavy on the foot, ill-fitting, and uncomfortable. I can't remember whether they were waterproof, because I didn't even get a good slosh in. Too painful - digging into my ankles and the tops of my feet, to even get out the door with them on. 

LL Bean has a pretty good return policy. Back in the day when I bought those Duck Shoes, you could return an item, any time after purchase - years, even. No reason required. Some unscrupulous folks used to take advantage of this, returning merchandise years after purchase for no reason, other than that their kids had outgrown it or something. This is one reason why LL Bean changed their FOREVER policy, but I think you still have a year to return something. 

Over the years, I only remember returning a few items. Some T's where the hems unraveled after a few washings. A turtleneck that shrunk into a belly shirt. A fleece that arrived in a ripped and repackaged packed A fleece that arrived damp and smelly; someone, somewhere along the way had spilled a hazelnut coffee on it. I really wanted that fleece when I wanted it, but after several washings, the fleece still smelled sicky sweet. Back it went.

But the Duck Shoes? I don't know why I didn't send them back. Probably because they weren't defective; just not for me. 

The went into the DONATE bag.

Linda Lenzi didn't buy Duck Boots. Or Duck Shoes.

She bought Storm Chasers.

And she didn't return hers, either. 

Instead, Linda Lenzi:

...filed a federal class action lawsuit against L.L. Bean, alleging the iconic outdoor apparel company based in Maine mislabeled the boots she purchased for more than $100 as waterproof, exposing her to “water leakage” that seeped into the footwear on an “inclement weather day,” legal filings show. (Source: Boston Globe)

I'm not against litigating in federal court. I'm all in favor of suing the bastards when they're taking away your voting rights, or killing your kids by lying about addictive painkillers. Etc. 

But getting exposed to "water leakage" on a nasty day?

Puh-leeze!

Attorneys for Linda Lenzi, a resident of Monroe County, N.Y., filed the suit Feb. 17 on behalf of her and “all others similarly situated,” a cohort that allegedly numbers more than 100 people with financial claims exceeding $5 million, the minimum threshold for federal class action eligibility, court papers show.

"More than 100 people." How many more than 100? Because if it's 101, even if the claims only exceed $5M by a penny, then each class action-er would collect $49, 504.95.

Not bad for a purchase of a bit over a hundred bucks.

Lenzi says that she bought the boots because of "labeling and advertising representing that the boots were 'waterproof.'" 

Turns out the uppers and soles may have been waterproof, the zipper enclosure wasn't. 

“L.L. Bean purchased cheaper non-waterproof zipper closures, put them on its Products without using a waterproof gusset, and then mislabeled, warranted and otherwise advertised the Products to consumers as ‘waterproof’ in a manner that ensured consumers would not miss the claim,” the complaint said.

Harrumph! 

The filing states that LL Bean no longer makes a full waterproof claim. True that. Here's what it now says:

• Easy on/off side zippers (not waterproof).
• Not designed to stay submerged in water.
• Best for snow, slush, rain and colder weather.

But this is too little, too late, for the foot-soaked, aggrieved Ms. Lenzi.

Sure, she's got a point about feeling hoodwinked by a claim of waterproofing.

But, curiously, I looked through the 1-star reviews of the Storm Chasers and no one seemed to be complaining about their lack of waterproof-ability. Nope. Most were complaining about zippers getting stuck and/or how uncomfortable the boots were. As in:

Like walking with your feet, ankles, and lower calves encased in blocks of concrete. These boots are very stiff and bulky. There is no "give" so you end up walking with your legs straight, like Herman Munster. I tried them on at home, was suspicious of the comfort, but gave them a go on a walk in the snow. Uncomfortable. When I got home the skin on the inside of my right ankle had wore off and I had red marks on my lower calves. You just can’t walk in these boots.

Kind of like my Duck Boots of yore...

Anyway, I really don't get why this issue merits a class action suit seeking extreme damages.

Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to a) return the boots for a refund; and b) write a scathing review on the LL Bean website. Or blast away on social media.

But tie up a federal court with this "problem?"

I don't know what stage this one is at, but I sure hope the courts give it the (duck) boot!