Abby Steiner vs. Puma and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix, The Defective Shoes Lawsuit That Could Change Athletic Footwear

This article covers a recently filed lawsuit. Information is limited to the complaint as filed on April 24, 2026. This page will be updated as the case develops.

Abby Steiner vs. Puma SE and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. is a product liability lawsuit in which two-time world champion sprinter Abby Steiner alleges that defective carbon-plated shoes designed by Puma and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix caused career-ending foot injuries. Steiner filed the lawsuit on April 24, 2026, in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts, seeking more than $1,250,000 in damages including hospital expenses and documented lost wages, and demanding a jury trial.

Abby Steiner vs. Puma Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Plaintiff	Abby Steiner
Defendant(s)	Puma SE; Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd.
Case Type	Product Liability / Personal Injury / Failure to Warn
Court	Middlesex County Superior Court, Massachusetts
Date Filed	April 24, 2026
Legal Claim	Defective product design; failure to warn; negligence; misrepresentation
Damages Sought	More than $1,250,000 (medical expenses, lost career earnings, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement)
Current Stage	Recently filed — no response from defendants yet
Attorneys of Record	TBD — not yet publicly confirmed in court filings
Next Scheduled Date	TBD — no hearing scheduled at this stage
Last Updated	April 29, 2026

Case Timeline

Date	Event
July 2022	Steiner signs endorsement deal with Puma
2023	First foot injuries begin; Steiner undergoes surgery on both feet
November 2023	Returns to jogging after surgery; symptoms return within weeks
2024	Steiner pulls out of multiple tune-up competitions before Olympic Trials
June 2024	Finishes sixth in 200m at U.S. Olympic Trials — does not make team
August 2025	Announces she is stepping back from running; undergoes third surgery on left foot
April 24, 2026	Lawsuit filed in Middlesex County Superior Court, Massachusetts
Next hearing	TBD — pending court scheduling

What Is the Abby Steiner vs. Puma Lawsuit About? Steiner v. Puma SE et al., Middlesex County Superior Court (2026)

Abby Steiner was one of the most promising sprinters in American track and field. She set a collegiate record in the 200m, won four NCAA championships at the University of Kentucky, and in 2022 was part of two U.S. teams that swept world championship gold in the 4×100 and 4×400 relay events. In July 2022, she signed a deal with Puma widely rumored to be worth $2 million — an enormous sum for a women’s sprinter coming out of the college ranks.

Within a year, her career was effectively over. Starting in 2023, Steiner began sustaining foot injuries and underwent at least three procedures between then and 2025. During the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. Olympic Trials, she had to pull out of several tune-up competitions because she could not get through walking or jogging drills in training.

According to the complaint, the cause was the shoes themselves. Steiner claims Puma’s shoes increased the risk of injuries through their design and use of carbon fiber plate and nitro foam technology. The specific products named in the lawsuit are the Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 2, the Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 3, and the evoSPEED Tokyo Nitro spikes. The lawsuit alleges these products “changed the foot and ankle mechanics during running” in ways that caused bone stress injuries, irregular strain on the feet, and an increased overall risk of injury.

Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. — the parent company of the Mercedes Formula 1 team — is named as a co-defendant because of its direct role in designing the spikes. A 2021 Puma news release quoted then-CEO Bjorn Gulden saying: “To make the best spikes for our athletes… we connected the engineers of Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 with our best footwear people.” Steiner’s complaint uses that public statement to establish Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix’s design involvement and resulting liability.

The legal theories in the complaint cover product liability and failure to warn — similar to the defective product claims at the center of the 3M Combat Arms earplug litigation, where a manufacturer’s alleged knowledge of a defect and failure to warn users formed the core of the case.

Who Are Abby Steiner and the Defendants?

Abby Steiner is a 26-year-old sprinter from the United States. A four-time NCAA champion, she was part of two world championship winning teams in 2022 — with victories in the 4×100 and 4×400-meter relays. She set national indoor track records with a 22.09 in the 200m in 2022 and a 35.54 in the 300m in 2023. She is central to this case because she alleges the Puma products she was contractually required to wear caused the injuries that ended her professional career.

Puma SE is a German multinational sportswear company and one of the world’s largest athletic footwear brands. Puma signed Steiner as a sponsored athlete in 2022. According to the complaint, Puma designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the shoes named in the lawsuit, and did so while allegedly knowing those products were defective.

Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. is the corporate entity behind the Mercedes Formula 1 team. Its engineers were brought into the Puma spike development program specifically to apply F1-level performance engineering to track and field footwear. Steiner’s complaint alleges that Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix had control over the design, testing, and promotion of the Puma footwear named in the suit — making it jointly liable for the alleged harm.

Related article: Meta Class Action Lawsuit, Facebook and Instagram Scam Ads, $16 Billion in Alleged Fraud Revenue, and What D.C. Users Can Do

What Is at Stake in Abby Steiner vs. Puma and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix, The Defective Shoes Lawsuit?

Steiner seeks more than $1,250,000 in damages, including hospital expenses, documented lost wages, and what the complaint describes as “the loss of full enjoyment of life and disfigurement.” She has also demanded a jury trial.

Beyond the money, what Steiner is asking the court to find is significant. The complaint alleges that Puma and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix misled consumers — including Steiner herself — into believing these products were adequately tested and safe for their intended use. According to the lawsuit, Puma promoted the shoes despite them being “unsafe, reasonably dangerous, defective and capable of causing injury and harms to consumers during ordinary, anticipated and foreseeable uses.”

The timing defense will be a major battleground. Steiner first sustained injuries years before filing this suit. Her argument is that she “only recently” discovered that Puma shoes were to blame, through their technology, which changed foot and ankle mechanics during running. The complaint states that she “did not know, nor could or should she have reasonably known, that she had been harmed or may have been harmed by defendants’ conduct.” That is a standard legal argument used to toll — meaning pause — a statute of limitations clock, and Puma’s defense will almost certainly push back on it hard.

For context on how product liability cases like this develop — including the timeline from filing to potential settlement — see how the Toyota airbag defective product case moved from initial complaint to a resolved $78.5 million outcome over several years.

What Happens Next in the Abby Steiner vs. Puma Case?

The case was filed just days ago. Here is what to expect at each stage:

In the next 30–60 days: Puma and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix will be formally served and must file a response — either an answer or a motion to dismiss. Given Puma’s likely defense that the claims lack merit and that the statute of limitations has run, a motion to dismiss is a reasonable early expectation.

If the case survives dismissal: The parties will enter discovery, where both sides exchange documents, take depositions, and hire expert witnesses. Steiner’s side will need biomechanics experts to establish that the shoe design caused her specific injuries. Puma will challenge both the causal link and the testing methodology behind the claims.

Settlement vs. trial: Many product liability cases of this type settle before trial, particularly once internal company documents about design testing become available through discovery. No settlement timeline can be projected at this stage.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a lawsuit against Puma over Abby Steiner’s injuries?

Yes. Steiner filed a product liability lawsuit against Puma and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts on April 24, 2026, seeking more than $1,250,000 in damages.

What court is handling the Abby Steiner vs. Puma case?

The case is filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts. No federal case number has been publicly confirmed yet. The Massachusetts Trial Court case access portal at masscourts.org is where public docket information will become available as the case progresses.

Has the case been resolved?

No. The lawsuit was filed April 24, 2026. No response from Puma or Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix has been filed yet. The case is in its earliest possible stage.

How much is Abby Steiner seeking in damages?

Steiner brought a $1.2 million product liability lawsuit in Massachusetts state court. The full damages demand covers medical expenses, lost career earnings, and non-economic damages including loss of enjoyment of life and disfigurement.

Can I read the court documents?

Yes. Massachusetts court records are publicly accessible at masscourts.org. Search under Abby Steiner’s name in Middlesex County Superior Court. Full documents may not be immediately available online, but basic docket information is public.

Why is Mercedes-Benz F1 named in a running shoe lawsuit?

Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix’s engineers were involved in designing the Puma spikes. Steiner’s complaint includes a 2021 Puma news release in which then-CEO Bjorn Gulden described connecting Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 engineers with Puma’s footwear team to develop the spikes. The complaint alleges this design involvement creates legal liability for the resulting harm.

What shoes does the lawsuit name specifically?

According to the complaint as reported by Front Office Sports, the lawsuit names the Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 2, the Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 3, and the evoSPEED Tokyo Nitro spikes.

Did Puma respond to the lawsuit?

Not yet. Puma and lawyers for Steiner did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A formal court response is expected within the standard 30-day window after service.

Sources & References

• Steiner v. Puma SE et al. — Middlesex County Superior Court, Massachusetts (filed April 24, 2026) — accessible at masscourts.org
• Law360 — Star Sprinter Says Puma Shoes Caused Career-Ending Injuries, April 27, 2026
• UPI — Champion Sprinter Abby Steiner Sues Puma Over Defective Shoes, April 28, 2026

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against publicly available court filings and verified news reporting. Last Updated: April 29, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information about this ongoing legal case is based on publicly available court records and verified reporting. Allegations described in this article have not been proven in court. For advice regarding a particular legal situation, consult a qualified attorney.