How Much SWISS Can You Sell? On Faces Class Action Over Sneaker Origin Claims

On’s running shoes are hugely popular for their performance and sleek design. But a new class action lawsuit claims the Swiss flag stamped on the heel gives customers the wrong impression: that the shoes are made in Switzerland, when they are actually manufactured in Vietnam and Indonesia. 

The case, Roman et al. v. On Inc., is currently before a federal judge in New York, who is deciding whether to let it move forward. The outcome could shape how much any brand, not just shoe companies, can lean on national symbols and pride when its products are made somewhere else.

What Happened

On or around July 2, 2025, two New York shoppers, Jose Roman and Glena Valdez, each paid about $160 for a pair of On’s popular “The Roger” sneakers at Paragon Sports. They later sued On Inc. in federal court, filing their complaint on December 19, 2025. Their complaint focuses on a red tag on the outside heel of the shoe that combines the Swiss cross with the words “SWISS ENGINEERING.” They claim this tag falsely suggests the shoes are made in Switzerland, when in fact, they are manufactured in Vietnam and Indonesia.

The plaintiffs say the shoe’s real country of origin is listed only on a small tag inside the shoe, printed in tiny text that is hard to read. They argue this matters because Swiss-branded products can sell for 20–50% more than similar goods without that label, what they call a “Swiss Premium.” They also point to Switzerland’s own labeling law, the Swissness Ordinance, arguing that On’s use of the Swiss cross violates that law and that Swiss regulators have challenged it before.¹

What the Customers Are Arguing

The amended complaint brings two claims under New York consumer protection laws for advertisement violations (General Business Law §§ 349 and 350) on behalf of a New York class action, plus a claim for “unjust enrichment.” Separately, the complaint brings a claim on behalf of a multi-state class of buyers across 20 states plus the District of Columbia, relying on those other states’ own consumer protection statutes. Altogether, the customers are seeking $25 million in damages.

The plaintiffs argue that it is too early for the judge to throw out the case. They say that whether an ordinary shopper would be misled by the label is a question of fact that needs more evidence, not something a judge can decide just by reading the complaint. They also argue that the Swiss flag combined with “Swiss Engineering” would lead a typical customer to believe the shoes are actually made in Switzerland, not just designed there, pointing to similar past cases involving Belgian chocolate and Italian pasta brands that used flags and origin claims on their packaging.

The plaintiffs further argue that the accurate country-of-origin label inside the shoe does not fix the problem created by the misleading claim on the outside. They also say they do not need to prove that this specific claim caused people to pay more, just that it is plausible.

What On Says in Its Defense

On argues that “Swiss Engineering” is simply true, the company is headquartered in Zurich and does its engineering and design work there. On says no reasonable customer would read that phrase as a claim about where the shoes are physically assembled, especially since the same tag also clearly states “Made in Vietnam” or “Made in Indonesia.”

On also points out that Swiss authorities have specifically approved this kind of labeling. The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property has confirmed that companies which design and engineer products in Switzerland, even if they manufacture elsewhere, are allowed to use the Swiss cross, and has said so specifically about On. 

On further argues that the plaintiffs have not shown that the “Swiss Engineering” label specifically drove any extra cost, as opposed to the shoes’ performance, design, or general brand reputation. On is also asking the court to narrow the case, arguing that since the plaintiffs are from New York and only bought this one style, the lawsuit should not cover shoppers in other states or other shoe models with different labels.

Where the Case Stands Now

The lawsuit was filed in December 2025 and assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis in the federal court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs filed an updated complaint in March, and the parties agreed to pause information-gathering (“discovery”) until the court rules on whether the case can proceed.²

As of July, all the court papers on On’s request to dismiss the case have been filed and are awaiting a decision from Judge Garaufis. No ruling has been issued yet, and the case remains on hold in the meantime.

What This Means for Your Brand

Even before the court rules, this case offers useful lessons for any brand that uses flags, national symbols, or country references in its marketing.

• National symbols carry extra weight. Pairing a flag or emblem with a more limited claim (like “engineered in” rather than “made in”) can create an overall impression that goes beyond the literal words. Think carefully about how customers are likely to read your labels, not just what the words technically say.
• Where you put a disclosure matters. Putting the accurate country-of-origin information somewhere hard to see, like a small interior tag, may not be enough to fix a misleading claim on the outside of a product. A prominent, eye-catching claim generally needs an equally clear correction.
• Courts are often reluctant to dismiss these cases early. Judges applying laws like New York’s consumer protection statutes tend to let juries or later stages of a case decide whether a claim is misleading, even when the claim is technically accurate.
• Approval from a foreign regulator does not protect you here. Even if a home-country regulator has approved a certain label or claim, that approval does not automatically protect a company from being sued under US consumer protection laws.

[1] Complaint, Roman et al. v. On Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06991 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1; First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 18, ¶¶ 1–95.

[2] Docket, Roman et al. v. On Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06991 (E.D.N.Y.), retrieved July 31, 2026.