Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2026

Adidas sued a sneaker leak account for extortion — then dropped the case itself

Adidas sued a sneaker leak account for trade-secret theft and extortion — then voluntarily dismissed the whole case three months later.

Adidas · 2026-03-12

What happened

Sole Retriever, a sneaker-release news account with 174,000 Instagram followers, regularly posted early images and details of unreleased shoes. On March 12, 2026, Adidas America sued Sole Retriever and its founder Harris Monoson in Oregon federal court, alleging they conspired — possibly with the help of Adidas employees at its Portland headquarters — to obtain confidential CAD renderings, pricing, release dates and collaboration details for signature shoes tied to NBA players Anthony Edwards and Donovan Mitchell.

The complaint went further than a leak claim: Adidas said Sole Retriever tried to extort preferential access to product information and events by threatening to publish the stolen designs, then posted them anyway when Adidas refused. Adidas sought Sole Retriever's profits from the alleged theft, which it estimated at more than $75,000, plus damages for trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement. Sole Retriever denied the claims and called the suit an attack on a sneaker media outlet's protected speech.

On June 17, 2026 — three months after filing, and before the case reached discovery deadlines the court had set for July — Adidas filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the entire action with prejudice, permanently barring itself from refiling any of the claims against Sole Retriever or Monoson. Neither side disclosed a settlement, and each side covered its own legal costs.

Why it happened

  • Adidas filed a public federal lawsuit built partly on the theory that its own employees may have leaked the material, without identifying who or offering that evidence publicly.
  • The extortion and trade-secret claims invited exactly the media attention and scrutiny of Adidas's internal leak controls that suing a leak account was meant to shut down.
  • Dismissing with prejudice after three months, before the case reached its own discovery deadline, is consistent with a claim Adidas could not or chose not to litigate to a result.
What it costsought $75,000+ in damages; dismissed with prejudiceembarrassing

The lesson

A lawsuit meant to shut down a leak account put Adidas's own security under public scrutiny instead, and dropping it with prejudice months later closed the case without ever proving the theft.

Aftermath

Case No. 3:26-cv-00484 (D. Or.) was terminated June 17, 2026. Sole Retriever continued operating and posting release information; Adidas made no further public statement on the source of the leaks.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →