Class Action Alleges Trek’s Concussion Prevention Claims for Bontrager WaveCel Bike Helmets No More Than a ‘Marketing Tool’

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges Trek’s claim that its Bontrager WaveCel bicycle helmets can reduce the chances of sustaining a concussion have been overstated as the product is only “marginally superior” to those sold by competitors. 

Though the product was touted by Trek as the most significant advancement in cycling in the last three decades, the Bontrager WaveCel helmet is not “up to 48x more effective than traditional helmets” at protecting against head injuries, the 18-page lawsuit says, alleging the defendant’s representations of the product were “false and misleading for several independent reasons.”

“Defendant’s promise is false or deceptive because their Helmets do not provide the promised reduced incidence of concussions,” the complaint claims. “In fact, objective and reliable research shows that claims of concussion reduction related to bicycle helmets are not valid and are instead simply a marketing tool.” 

Increased public awareness of the neurological risks associated with concussions has drawn great attention to products touted as able to better protect against head injuries, the lawsuit begins. Per the case, a downside to this attention, however, is that products purporting to better protect against concussions cost significantly more. Nevertheless, many consumers are willing to pay a premium beyond a standard product if an alternative has even a slight chance of providing any additional head injury protection, the suit says.

According to the complaint, Trek advertised the Bontrager WaveCel helmet as “[a] major advancement in the protection against cycling-related head injuries,” and claimed the product was up to 48 times more effective than traditional foam helmets. The lawsuit points out, however, that much of Trek’s marketing of the product “noticeably avoids the term ‘concussion,’” using instead “a variety of euphemisms.” 

As the suit tells it, reasonable consumers understand the terms Trek uses to promote the WaveCel helmet as intended to refer to concussions even if the defendant does not explicitly say so. 

The lawsuit alleges that objective and reliable research shows claims of concussion reduction as far as bicycle helmets are concerned are “not valid and are instead simply a marketing tool.” According to the complaint, Trek’s claims with regard to concussion prevention are based heavily on a study the company conducted to support its marketing assertions. 

For one, it is misleading to claim that a bicycle helmet can prevent or reduce the risk of concussions given there is no standardized definition for concussion, the lawsuit says. In effect, the human skull and brain are described with the common analogy of an eggshell and a yolk in that when the brain, or yolk, moves violently within the skull, or eggshell, as it would upon a blow to the head, it smashes against the sides of the skull in a manner that cannot be protected against from the outside, the suit relays. 

“Accordingly, while the shell can be protected with a device that might prevent it from cracking, this device cannot prevent the yolk inside the shell from being shaken and twisted,” the complaint reads. 

The lawsuit then claims that “credible studies demonstrating an effect of helmets on concussions do not exist for several reasons,” including the fact that a randomized double-blind controlled trial would require a large number of cyclists who would know whether they were wearing a helmet or not. Most studies showed that helmet use “did not result in a statistically significant reduction in concussion incidence and symptoms,” the suit says, picking apart studies that it relays were deficient in outlining a relationship between helmet use and brain injury reduction. 

Trek’s study on helmet use and concussions upon which its claims for the product were based were centered on the “increased academic and medical attention given to rotational acceleration as a cause of concussions,” the lawsuit says. Accordingly, the complaint continues, the standard measure of helmet effectiveness—linear acceleration—is ill-equipped for helmets that prevent concussions as opposed to other head injuries such as skull fractures:

“Generally, concussion is ‘induced by low-energy linear and rotational accelerations that cause more diffuse, distributed impact loading and peak ICP than the brain tissue can tolerate, resulting in damage to the microscopic structures of the brain and temporary onset of neurological impairment.’ 

More severe forms of TBI are typically caused by high-energy focal forces loading onto a localized region of the brain, resulting in injuries such as penetrating TBI and depressed skull fractures.” 

“Helmets are designed to prevent extreme forms of brain injury such as skull fracture which often results in death,” the suit says. “The Product’s emphasis on being different from ‘traditional helmets’ which supposedly do not protect against angular impacts is misleading.”

Moreover, the lawsuit claims one or more of the study’s authors have an undisclosed “direct financial interest” in Trek’s exclusively licensed WaveCel technology.

The case rounds out with the argument that the price Trek charges for its Bontrager WaveCel bike helmet is not equivalent to the benefit offered by the product. According to the lawsuit, Trek has been able to sell more units of the product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of the alleged misrepresentations.

The lawsuit looks to represent those in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland who bought Trek’s Bontrager WaveCel bicycle helmet within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.