Hoka UK Class Action Lawsuit, Competition Tribunal Ruling on Price-Fixing & What UK Consumers Need to Know

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on 31 October 2024 that Deckers (Hoka’s owner) illegally fixed prices by restricting online sales, violating Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. Retailer Up & Running won the liability case after Deckers stopped supplying Hoka shoes when the retailer sold discounted stock on a clearance website in December 2021. The tribunal found Deckers’ only objective was restricting price competition—not protecting the brand. A separate damages trial will determine the compensation amount Up & Running receives.

Current Status: December 2025

Liability Established, Damages Pending

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favour of Up & Running on 31 October 2024, finding that Deckers UK Limited violated UK competition law through resale price maintenance and online sales restrictions.

What has been decided: Deckers committed two separate “by object” infringements of the Chapter I prohibition.

What remains pending: A second trial to determine the damages amount Up & Running will receive has been scheduled but the outcome has not yet been publicly announced as of December 2025.

The Two-Phase Trial Process

In February 2024, the CAT ordered a split trial:

• Trial 1 (completed October 2024): Liability, injunctive relief, and causation
• Trial 2 (pending): Assessment of loss or damage

This case was argued by a self-represented litigant (the owner of Up & Running) using the CAT’s fast-track procedure, demonstrating that the system allows small businesses to successfully challenge major brands.

What Deckers Did Wrong

The tribunal found Deckers committed two separate “by object” infringements of the Chapter I prohibition:

Online Sales Restriction: Deckers prevented Up & Running from selling Hoka shoes through a discount clearance website (runningshoes.co.uk), blocking retailers from engaging in passive online sales of Hoka products.

Resale Price Maintenance (RPM): Deckers attempted to control retail prices by preventing Up & Running from selling Hoka shoes at discounted prices, indirectly fixing sales prices to maintain artificially high prices.

The CAT concluded that the only objective of Deckers’ distribution policy was to restrict price competition, as opposed to legitimate aims like promoting the Hoka brand.

The Background: What Led to the Lawsuit

The Business Relationship

Until December 2021, Deckers supplied Up & Running with Hoka-branded products at the wholesale level. Up & Running operated as an authorized Hoka retailer, selling the premium running shoes through its brick-and-mortar stores and main website.

The COVID-19 Trigger

In July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Up & Running faced reduced business activity and accumulated excess stock. The retailer proposed launching a new website—runningshoes.co.uk—to sell this out-of-season inventory at discounted prices.

Deckers declined the proposal. Up & Running proceeded anyway.

The Supply Termination

When Up & Running began selling Hoka shoes at reduced prices on the clearance website, Deckers claimed this violated its terms and conditions. Deckers argued the second website was not “obviously linked” to Up & Running’s main retail presence.

In November 2020, Deckers threatened to cease supply if the website continued selling Hoka shoes. In December 2021, Deckers terminated its supply agreement and stopped providing Hoka shoes to Up & Running.

Up & Running Fights Back

Rather than accept the loss of a key product line, Up & Running filed a standalone damages claim under section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 in 2023, alleging Deckers’ conduct constituted anticompetitive behaviour.

The case management conference was held on 1 December 2023. A part of the claim alleging Chapter II Prohibition (abuse of dominance) was stayed, focusing the case on the Chapter I competition issues.

The Legal Issues: Competition Law Explained

Chapter I Prohibition (Competition Act 1998)

The Chapter I prohibition is the UK equivalent of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It prohibits agreements between businesses that have the object or effect of restricting, preventing, or distorting competition within the UK.

Resale Price Maintenance (RPM)

RPM occurs when a manufacturer or supplier attempts to control the prices at which retailers sell products. This is generally illegal under competition law because:

• It prevents price competition between retailers
• It keeps prices artificially high
• It harms consumers by denying them lower prices
• It restricts market efficiency

Online Sales Restrictions

EU and UK competition law recognize that the internet is a vital sales channel. Restrictions that prevent retailers from effectively using the internet to reach customers can violate competition law, particularly when such restrictions:

• Prevent passive sales (customers finding the retailer online)
• Block retailers from using discount platforms
• Limit price transparency and consumer choice

“By Object” Infringements

Some anticompetitive agreements are so obviously harmful to competition that courts don’t need to prove actual negative effects—the agreement’s mere existence violates the law. These are called “by object” restrictions.

The CAT found both restrictions qualified as hardcore restrictions under the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order (VABEO), which removes the benefit of the exemption.

Deckers’ Failed Defenses

The Metro Criteria Argument

Deckers argued its distribution system was a legitimate “selective distribution system” that should be exempt from competition law under the Metro criteria.

Selective distribution systems allow manufacturers to choose authorized retailers based on qualitative criteria (expertise, service standards, store presentation) to protect brand image and ensure product quality.

However, the CAT rejected this defense, finding that Deckers’ system failed to meet the Metro requirements because its primary purpose was price control, not brand protection.

The VABEO Defense

Deckers also claimed its agreements should benefit from exemption under the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order (VABEO), which automatically exempts certain vertical agreements from competition law if market share thresholds are met.

The tribunal accepted that Deckers had a low market share as a wholesaler of specialized running shoes in the UK. However, because Deckers’ restrictions qualified as “hardcore restrictions” under the VABEO (RPM and online sales restrictions), the block exemption did not apply.

What This Means for UK Consumers

No Direct Consumer Compensation

Important: This case does not create a class action or settlement for UK consumers who purchased Hoka shoes. The damages award goes to Up & Running as the injured business, not to individual shoe buyers.

UK consumers who bought Hoka shoes at allegedly inflated prices cannot file claims for compensation through this case.

Potential Future Price Competition

The ruling may affect future Hoka pricing in the UK by:

• Preventing Deckers from blocking retailers from offering discounts
• Allowing more price competition among authorized retailers
• Potentially leading to lower prices for consumers through online discount channels

However, Deckers can still set recommended retail prices and operate selective distribution systems—as long as retailers remain free to set their own actual prices and sell through legitimate online channels.

Broader Competition Law Impact

The case establishes an important precedent that manufacturers cannot use selective distribution systems as a pretext for price-fixing. The Up & Running decision marks a significant enforcement milestone in the UK, showing that small businesses can successfully challenge anticompetitive conduct by major brands.

UK Hoka Warranty (Separate Issue)

UK consumers have a two-year warranty on Hoka shoes purchased from hoka.com or authorized retailers, covering defective materials and workmanship.

What the Warranty Covers

• Manufacturing defects
• Defective materials
• Workmanship issues
• Products less than two years old

What the Warranty Does NOT Cover

• Normal wear and tear
• Accidental damage (pets, heat, weather, playground equipment, etc.)
• Items that have been washed, altered, or excessively worn
• Improper care

How to File a UK Warranty Claim

1. Contact Hoka customer service with:
   
   • Order number or proof of purchase
   • Photos of the defect
   • Photos of inside/outsoles of the shoe
2. Wait for approval – Customer service reviews your claim
   
3. Return the shoes (if approved):
   
   • You must pay return shipping costs
   • Use original Hoka packaging if possible
   • Ensure secure packaging if not
4. Inspection – Hoka inspects returned shoes to verify defect
   
5. Resolution (if approved):
   
   • Refund to original payment method
   • Exchange for replacement shoes

The Shipping Cost Controversy

Like US consumers, UK customers must pay return shipping costs to submit warranty claims, which can cost £5-£15. This requirement has drawn criticism, especially when:

• Shoes cost £130-£170
• Claims are sometimes denied after paying shipping
• Defects appear shortly after purchase

However, UK consumers benefit from stronger statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which provides additional protections beyond Hoka’s voluntary warranty.

UK Consumer Rights Beyond Hoka’s Warranty

Consumer Rights Act 2015

UK consumers have statutory rights that exist independently of manufacturer warranties:

Goods must be:

• Of satisfactory quality
• Fit for purpose
• As described

Timelines:

• Within 30 days: Full refund from retailer if goods are faulty
• Within 6 months: Retailer must prove goods weren’t faulty at purchase if you claim defect
• Up to 6 years (England/Wales/NI) or 5 years (Scotland): You can claim for defects that were present at purchase

These rights apply against the retailer, not Hoka directly, if you bought from a UK shop.

How This Differs from Hoka’s Warranty

• Hoka’s warranty is voluntary and additional to your statutory rights
• Your Consumer Rights Act claims are against the retailer, not Hoka
• Statutory rights last up to 6 years (England/Wales/NI) or 5 years (Scotland)
• Retailers cannot require you to pay return shipping if goods are faulty
• You can reject faulty goods and get a full refund within 30 days

No UK Class Action for Defective Shoes

Unlike the US, where law firm Peiffer Wolf announced an investigation in June 2024 into defective Hoka Clifton 9 shoes for potential legal action, no similar UK investigation or class action exists regarding product defects.

UK consumers experiencing premature shoe wear or sole separation should:

1. File a warranty claim with Hoka (within 2 years)
2. Exercise Consumer Rights Act claims against the retailer (within 6 years)
3. Report to Trading Standards if you believe Hoka is engaging in unfair practices
4. File a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) if you believe Hoka’s advertising is misleading

Key Differences: UK vs US Hoka Legal Issues

What Should UK Hoka Owners Do?

If You Have Defective Shoes

Option 1: Hoka Warranty Claim

• Contact Hoka customer service at hoka.com/en/gb
• Provide proof of purchase and photos
• Be prepared to pay return shipping
• Best for purchases directly from Hoka

Option 2: Consumer Rights Act Claim

• Contact the retailer where you bought the shoes
• Assert your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act
• Within 30 days: Demand full refund
• Within 6 months: Retailer must prove shoes weren’t faulty
• Retailer cannot charge you return shipping for faulty goods
• Best for purchases from UK shops

Option 3: Credit Card Chargeback

• If you paid by credit card (purchases £100-£30,000)
• Section 75 Consumer Credit Act gives you equal claim against card provider
• Contact your credit card company if retailer/Hoka refuses resolution
• Strong protection for UK consumers

Document Everything

• Take detailed photos of defects
• Save proof of purchase
• Note purchase date and how long you’ve worn them
• Record mileage/usage if known
• Keep all correspondence with Hoka and retailers
• Note when defects first appeared

Report Systemic Issues

If you believe Hoka is engaging in unfair practices:

Trading Standards

• Contact your local Trading Standards office via Citizens Advice consumer helpline: 0808 223 1133
• Report suspected breaches of consumer protection law

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)

• File a complaint at asa.org.uk if you believe Hoka’s advertising is misleading
• ASA can investigate claims about product durability, quality, or performance

Up & Running vs Deckers: What Happens Next

Damages Assessment Trial

A separate trial will determine how much compensation Up & Running receives. As of December 2025, the damages amount has not been publicly announced. Factors may include:

• Lost profits from being unable to sell Hoka shoes since December 2021
• Damage to business relationships and reputation
• Costs incurred in finding alternative products
• Loss of customer goodwill

Potential Appeal

Deckers could appeal the October 2024 liability ruling to the Court of Appeal, though no appeal has been publicly announced as of December 2025.

Compliance Monitoring

Deckers must ensure its UK distribution practices comply with competition law going forward. The CAT refused to grant an injunction requiring Deckers to resume supply to Up & Running, finding that the relationship had broken down and damages are adequate compensation.

Broader Industry Impact

Other footwear and sportswear brands operating selective distribution systems in the UK will likely review their terms and conditions to ensure compliance following this precedent. In another recent UK case, Dar Lighting received a £1.5 million fine for discouraging discounting, which amounted to illegal RPM.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I claim compensation as a UK consumer who bought Hoka shoes?

No. The Up & Running case awards damages only to the retailer, not individual consumers. However, you have separate rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if your shoes are defective.

Will Hoka shoes be cheaper in the UK now?

Possibly. The October 2024 ruling prevents Deckers from blocking retailers from offering discounts, which may lead to more price competition. However, Deckers can still set recommended prices and choose which retailers to authorize.

Is there a UK class action for defective Hoka shoes?

No. Unlike the US where Peiffer Wolf announced an investigation in June 2024 into defective shoes, no UK law firm has announced a similar investigation or class action.

How long do I have to file a warranty claim with Hoka?

Two years from purchase date for Hoka’s voluntary warranty. However, your Consumer Rights Act statutory rights last up to 6 years (5 years in Scotland).

Do I have to pay return shipping for warranty claims?

For Hoka’s voluntary warranty: Yes. For Consumer Rights Act claims against retailers: No—retailers cannot charge return shipping for faulty goods.

What if Hoka denies my warranty claim?

Exercise your Consumer Rights Act rights against the retailer where you purchased the shoes. Within 6 months of purchase, the retailer must prove the shoes weren’t faulty when sold.

Can I get a refund instead of a replacement?

Within 30 days of purchase: Yes, full refund from retailer if goods are faulty. After 30 days: You may be entitled to repair, replacement, or partial refund depending on circumstances.

Where can I report misleading advertising by Hoka?

File a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) at asa.org.uk. ASA investigates misleading advertising claims.

Does the UK ruling affect Hoka sales in other countries?

No. The ruling only applies to Deckers’ conduct in the UK. However, it may influence competition law enforcement in other jurisdictions.

Will Up & Running start selling Hoka shoes again?

No. The CAT refused to order Deckers to resume supply, finding that the relationship had broken down and damages are adequate compensation.

When will the damages amount be announced?

The second trial to determine damages was scheduled to follow the October 2024 liability ruling. As of December 2025, the damages amount has not been publicly announced. Check the Competition Appeal Tribunal website (catribunal.org.uk) for updates on case 1615/5/7/23.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling in Up & Running (UK) Limited v Deckers UK Limited (31 October 2024) and UK consumer rights. It is current as of December 2025 and is not legal advice. For specific questions about your situation, consult a qualified solicitor. This article is not affiliated with Up & Running, Deckers, Hoka, the Competition Appeal Tribunal, or any other party involved in the case.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah