7 Explosive Truths: FP Insoles vs Remind Insoles Impact Test False Advertising Exposed​
FP Insoles vs Remind Insoles impact test false advertising has become one of the most critical legal and technical discussions in modern action sports footwear. High-impact athletes especially skateboarders and snowboarders rely on advanced footwear gear to prevent heel bruises, joint stress and long-term musculoskeletal injury. When product marketing claims guarantee superior shock absorption and impact attenuation, those claims must stand up under rigorous laboratory conditions.
A legal complaint filed in the Superior Court of California (County of San Diego) details allegations of false advertising, trade libel, and unfair competition against Remind Insoles Inc. This comprehensive breakdown examines the core claims, laboratory testing data, thermal performance evaluations, and the broader implications for active consumers seeking authentic impact protection.
1. The Legal Origin of the Controversy Controversy
The lawsuit, Footprint Insole Technology Inc. v. Remind Insoles Inc., alleges a multi-year comparative advertising campaign designed to misinform consumers regarding relative product performance. According to the filed complaint, the dispute centers on comparative marketing campaigns launched as early as 2022 that targeted branded search queries like “FP Insoles,” “Footprint Insoles” and “Remind vs FP” across Google Ads, YouTube and search engine optimization channels.
LEGAL ACTION SUMMARYÂ
+————————————————————————-+
| Plaintiff: Footprint Insole Technology Inc. (FP Insoles) |
| Defendant: Remind Insoles Inc. |
| Forum: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego |
| Causes: 1. False Advertising |
|        2. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) |
|Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3. Trade Libel
FP Insoles asserts that despite providing independent laboratory test data from SGS demonstrating superior energy absorption, the comparative advertising continued and escalated. To review the official legal documentation, read our complete Civil Complaint against Remind Insoles or check our overarching FP Insoles Lawsuits Overview page for live status updates
2. Dissecting the 2026 Tommy Sandoval Campaign
A key catalyst in the legal filing involves a 2026 comparative promotional video featuring professional skateboarder Tommy Sandoval. FP Insoles alleges that the video creates a misleading impression of performance through flawed, non-equivalent testing setups:
Model Mismatching: The campaign compared a high-profile Remind product directly against a mid-profile FP model without disclosing the dimensional differences.
Impact Zone Selection: Impact force was directed onto one of the thinnest sections of the FP insole rather than evaluating equivalent cushion zones.
Omission of Top-Tier Lines: High-attenuation lines, such as the FP Kingfoam Elite Insoles and FP Gamechangers Custom Orthotics, were completely excluded from the comparative demonstration.
Lack of Controls: The demonstration omitted standard laboratory controls, including full testing sequences, clear product selection criteria, and repeated verification trials.
3. Laboratory Data: Measuring Transmitted Force
+————————————————————————-+
| 25-JOULE IMPACT TEST RESULTS (FORCE N) |
+————————————————————————-+
| FP Kingfoam Orthotics FluidX High : 6,500 N (Best Absorption)|
| FP Kingfoam Elite High Sport : 6,600 N |
| FP Gamechangers High Sport : 7,500 N |
| FP Gamechangers Pro Sport Mid : 8,500 N |
| Remind Medic Mid Profile : 14,200 N (Highest Force) |
+————————————————————————-+
These laboratory metrics demonstrate that under controlled equivalent testing, FP products transmitted dramatically less impact force to the foot compared to the tested Remind model. Learn more about our technical engineering on the FP Insoles Technology Page and explore our full Impact Testing Methodology Report.
4. The Heat Factor: In-Shoe Thermal Degradation
Standard ambient laboratory tests often fail to reflect actual athletic use. Inside a closed shoe, friction, sustained body weight, and body heat elevate material temperatures well above room temperature.
Shore C Hardness & High-Energy Testing
FP conducted Shore C durometer hardness tests alongside 50-joule high-energy impact testing (5 kg impactor) to simulate severe landings:
Cold Conditions: Tested Remind insoles registered a hardness of 50 Shore C.
Room Temperature (30°C): Hardness dropped to 30 Shore C, with transmitted force measuring 23,000 N.
Body Temperature (40°C): Hardness dropped further to 20 Shore C, causing transmitted force to jump to 34,000 N—a 30% loss in impact attenuation.
In contrast, FP’s proprietary non-Newtonian material formulations (found across the FP Footwear Collection and FP FluidX Impact Products) maintain structural integrity and force absorption across operating thermal ranges. Discover how heat affects active footwear in our detailed study on Temperature Sensitivity in Action Sports Insoles.
5. Understanding the ASTM Testing Limitations
While ambient laboratory testing under guidelines like ASTM International Standards provides a baseline for footwear cushioning, it does not fully simulate high-load action sports.
“Standard ASTM footwear testing conducted under ambient laboratory temperatures does not account for the enclosed thermal environment of an athletic shoe during prolonged active use.” — FP Footwear Science Brief
Â
Because footwear insoles operate in a heat-retaining environment, materials that soften under body heat suffer diminished protective capacity when athletes need it most. For a full technical comparison, read our article on ASTM Footwear Testing vs Real World Skateboarding Impacts.
6. Causes of Action Set Forth in Court
The legal filing outlines three core causes of action under California law:
False Advertising: Publishing false claims, misleading comparative videos, and inaccurate marketing charts to influence consumer buying decisions.
Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200): Engaging in sharp, deceptive tactics that target athletes, retailers, and endorsers.
Trade Libel: Disparaging product integrity through provably inaccurate public statements.
The prayer for relief seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory and punitive damages, profit disgorgement, and corrective advertising. Read our detailed report on California Business and Professions Code 17200 in Action Sports Marketing.
7. How Athletes Can Evaluate Insole Performance
To ensure you are getting genuine impact protection, evaluate insole options using these objective criteria:
Request Verification: Look for independent third-party laboratory reports from organizations like SGS Testing Services rather than unverified marketing clips.
Check High-Energy Absorption: Verify performance under severe impact loads rather than light walking pressures.
Verify Thermal Stability: Ensure the cushioning material retains its protective density under body heat.
Choose Appropriate Arch Profiles: Match arch profiles correctly using tools like the FP Insole Fitting Guide.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the core issue in the FP Insoles vs Remind Insoles impact test false advertising lawsuit?
The lawsuit alleges that Remind Insoles used misleading comparative marketing, improper test setups, and unverified performance claims to falsely present their insoles as superior in shock absorption.
How do lab results compare between FP Insoles and Remind Insoles?
In standardized 25-joule testing, FP insoles registered transmitted forces between 6,500 N and 8,500 N, whereas the tested Remind Medic profile measured 14,200 N (lower force indicates superior absorption).
Does temperature affect insole shock absorption?
Yes. Certain viscoelastic materials soften as shoe temperatures rise, losing up to 30% of their impact attenuation capacity during prolonged active use.
Where can I read the official court documents?
You can access the full court filing on our FP Insoles Legal Resource Center or view the San Diego Superior Court Portal.
Conclusion​
The FP Insoles vs Remind Insoles impact test false advertising case underscores the vital importance of accurate, scientifically verifiable product claims in protective athletic equipment. As legal proceedings continue in San Diego Superior Court, consumers are encouraged to rely on transparent laboratory testing and objective performance data when selecting shock-absorbing footwear gear.
For more information, explore our complete FP Insoles Product Catalog or contact our technical support team through the FP Insoles Contact Page[cite: 1].