Swiss running brand On Running faces a major class action lawsuit in the U.S. after consumers reported embarrassing squeaky noises coming from the company’s signature CloudTec shoes. The issue—once dismissed as a minor external factor—has become a credibility crisis for one of the most hyped athletic brands of the decade. This article explores the engineering roots of the problem, On’s response strategy, and the broader implications for the global running shoe industry.
The Light and Shadow of Innovation: Inside CloudTec’s Design
The double-edged nature of air pockets
On Running’s success largely stems from its proprietary CloudTec technology—those distinct hollow pods under the sole that compress upon landing and rebound when pushing off. The design delivers a soft-yet-responsive feel that revolutionized running comfort.
However, the same hollow architecture that creates the “running on clouds” sensation can also generate unwanted friction and airflow, producing squeaky noises under certain humidity or pressure conditions. The very geometry that enhances comfort ironically amplifies sound when air pockets deform or rubber layers rub internally. This highlights a recurring dilemma in modern tech-driven design: engineering perfection doesn’t always translate to real-world comfort.
“Not a Defect”? How On’s Response Shook Consumer Trust
On has maintained that the noise stems from external conditions—like moisture and wear—and therefore doesn’t qualify as a manufacturing defect. While technically plausible, this stance risks alienating customers who feel embarrassed wearing premium shoes that squeak in quiet environments.
Online forums now overflow with DIY “fixes”—from applying coconut oil to air vents to drying insoles overnight. Such grassroots problem-solving exposes a gap between brand promises and user reality. When consumers become their own engineers, trust erodes faster than soles wear down. The class action lawsuit’s claim of deceptive marketing arises not only from product flaws but from the perception that On knew of the issue yet downplayed it.
The Crisis of a Rising Star: From Triathlon Roots to Lifestyle Fame
Founded by triathletes, On Running built its identity around performance and precision. But as it transitioned from niche running circles to mainstream fashion, the brand faced new challenges. Its minimalist aesthetic and cloud-like ride captured the “running core” lifestyle—especially among urban millennials and fashion-conscious female runners.
Unlike Nike or Adidas, On’s meteoric rise relied on word-of-mouth and innovation-driven storytelling rather than massive advertising budgets. Yet this very agility may have left gaps in risk management. Legacy giants like Nike have decades of consumer testing and complaint resolution frameworks. On, still relatively young, must now evolve beyond being an “innovative challenger” into a resilient global brand capable of crisis control.
Two Paths Forward: Engineering Fix and Transparent Communication
To navigate this crisis, On needs to act decisively on two fronts:
Technical Resolution: Implement a clear refund or replacement policy for affected models while accelerating the development of a second-generation CloudTec system that eliminates noise through redesigned airflow and material damping. Simply denying defects is no longer viable when customer experience defines the product’s reputation.
Transparent Messaging: Even without commenting directly on ongoing litigation, On must acknowledge consumer frustration and communicate that its engineering teams are prioritizing a lasting fix. Openness and empathy will prove more valuable to long-term brand equity than any courtroom defense.
What This Means for the Running Shoe Industry
The On lawsuit underlines a powerful market truth: innovation is incomplete without experiential perfection. The running shoe race is no longer about thicker midsoles or higher rebound—it’s about holistic comfort, silence, and trust.
As brands like On and Hoka disrupt legacy players, they must remember that scaling innovation requires not only technical prowess but emotional intelligence. When technology falters, transparency becomes the new form of performance.
If On transforms this misstep into a genuine learning moment—acknowledging flaws and delivering a superior 2.0 version—the crisis could cement its reputation as a mature brand. But if it clings to denial, the “shoe that runs on clouds” risks being remembered as the shoe that squeaked through its own downfall.