Performance-Enhancing? Class Action Says Under Armour’s ‘Rush’ Apparel Provides No Endurance, Recovery Benefits

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action says Under Armour has falsely advertised its “Rush” line of athletic apparel by touting the products as “the fabric version of an infrared sauna” and able to recycle the body’s energy during performance.

The 15-page lawsuit alleges there is simply no way Under Armour’s Rush apparel can provide wearers with the performance-enhancing effects touted by the company, in particular given the type of infrared energy supposedly recycled by the gear is nearly incapable of penetrating human tissue.

“The Product is no more effective than a placebo,” the complaint out of New York federal court reads. 

According to the lawsuit, Under Armour’s Rush apparel is a type of “bioceramic” that the company describes as a “mineral-infused fabric designed to enhance performance” and give athletes that “extra edge by recycling the body’s energy.” Under Armour claims its Rush gear is able to provide “the same benefits of an infrared sauna” in that the fabric absorbs heat emitted by the body and converts it into “infrared energy that is re-emitted back into the body,” the suit says. Per the case, Under Armour claims this recycled energy can increase temporary localized circulation, which promotes performance, energy and recovery, and that the Rush apparel stimulates increased endurance and strength when worn. 

The case says, however, that Under Armour’s U.S. website does not use the term “far infrared radiation” (FIR) despite the fact that it’s used on the defendant’s sites in other countries to describe the type of energy on the infrared spectrum that’s purportedly beneficial to the human body. Under Armour claims that the Rush apparel, after absorbing heat from the body, will convert the heat, or energy, into FIR, which is reflected back to the body, the suit relays. 

In truth, it is “false to claim that FIR can achieve the effects” claimed by Under Armour, the lawsuit alleges, contending that because human tissue is close to 70 percent water, it becomes “opaque to infrared as the wavelength increase[s] into the FIR.”

According to the complaint, far-infrared radiation is, among the three types of infrared radiation, “the least capable of penetrating human tissue and dissipating heat.” 

Broken down further, the suit says near-infrared has the greatest ability to penetrate human tissue into the subcutaneous layer and can provide the best dissipation of heat from the skin surface. Mid-infrared comes next and has the deepest tissue penetration, to roughly 0.5 millimeters, the case says. Last in line, according to the lawsuit, is far-infrared radiation, which has a tissue penetration of only “about 0.1 mm.”

“Therefore, any far-infrared radiation will be unable to penetrate through the skin to achieve the effects promised, viz, increase circulation,” the suit argues, adding that although the product claims to have the ability to “recycle[] energy,” “this is misleading because all bodies at temperatures above absolute zero emit energy, or ‘heat.’” 

The lawsuit contends that far-infrared radiation is no different from the ordinary heat energy radiated by all objects, and the ability to emit energy back to the body is a trait inherent to any fabric that absorbs heat and radiates warmth. Per the case, the plaintiff used Under Armour’s Rush apparel but did not experience the effects and benefits touted by the company in that he was not able to recover more quickly or exercise longer relative to other athletic clothes. 

Even if the FIR was able to provide the effects advertised by Under Armour, the FIR generated by the apparel would still be insufficient to achieve the hyped benefits, the case says. 

At any rate, “numerous scientists” have noted the dangers of far-infrared radiation, according to the suit.

The lawsuit claims Under Armour’s branding, marketing and packaging for its Rush apparel is “designed to—and does—deceive, mislead, and defraud” consumers. The suit says Under Armour was able to sell more of the gear and at higher prices than it otherwise would have absent the alleged fraudulent advertising.

“Had plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it,” the case reads.

The suit looks to represent those who bought Under Armour’s Rush apparel in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania during the applicable statutes of limitations.

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