4 of Nike’s Biggest Footwear Controversies

At a certain level of scale, a sneaker stops being just a sneaker.

For Nike, every product that leaves its ecosystem carries meaning far beyond performance or style. It is tied to history, culture, and a logo that has become shorthand for aspiration itself. That makes control less about ego and more about preservation.

The flashpoints that follow The Shoe Surgeon’s commercialized customs, MSCHF’s Satan Shoes stunt, the unresolved fight with StockX over NFTs and authenticity, and the backlash surrounding the MLK tribute release are not random controversies. There are moments where Nike felt its narrative slipping out of its hands.

What is notable is not how often Nike steps in, but when. Custom work is tolerated until it turns into a business. Cultural commentary is allowed until it reads like an endorsement. Virality is fine until it distorts brand intent. When those lines blur, Nike reacts quickly and decisively.

Taken together, these episodes show a brand that understands its greatest asset is not just product innovation, but authorship. In a market built on remixing and resale, Nike’s position is clear. Culture can play with the product, but it does not get to rewrite the brand.

Nike vs. The Shoe Surgeon

In July 2024, Nike sued celebrity customizer Dominic Ciambrone (The Shoe Surgeon) and SRGN Studios in federal court, seeking more than $60 million in damages. The issue centers on trademark infringement and brand control, with Nike suing customizer Dominic Ciambrone, known as The Shoe Surgeon, on the grounds that his custom sneakers, workshops, and related content crossed the line from artistic customization into unauthorized commercial exploitation of Nike trademarks by turning Nike IP into resale product and educational material without permission, thereby risking consumer confusion and brand dilution.

The dispute concluded in a confidential settlement under which The Shoe Surgeon is no longer allowed to sell Nike branded products or host workshops that use Nike intellectual property, and any remaining one off customs are subject to tighter restrictions and must include clear disclaimers stating the lack of affiliation or authorization.

Nike vs. MSCHF (Satan Shoes)

In March 2021, art collective MSCHF and artist Lil Nas X released 666 pairs of customized Nike Air Max 97 sneakers dubbed “Satan Shoes”, priced at $1,018 each. The issue involved trademark infringement and alleged brand dilution after MSCHF released its 2021 “Satan Shoes,’ modified Nike Air Max 97s featuring satanic imagery and a reported drop of human blood, which many consumers assumed were Nike endorsed despite Nike having no involvement. Public backlash over the shoes blurred the line between art project and brand endorsement, prompting Nike to sue swiftly to halt sales and protect its image; a temporary restraining order stopped distribution, and MSCHF ultimately agreed to a settlement that required it to offer refunds to buyers.

Nike vs. StockX

In February 2022, Nike sued resale platform StockX in the Southern District of New York over its “Vault NFT” program. The issue centers on counterfeiting, NFTs, and authenticity claims, with Nike suing StockX over the sale of allegedly counterfeit Nike sneakers connected to StockX’s NFT based ‘Vault’ system and arguing that the platform was using its trademarks to market both physical products and digital assets without authorization, thereby undermining consumer trust in authenticity. The litigation has produced ongoing proceedings and partial rulings, with some of Nike’s claims allowed to move forward, but it has not yet yielded a clear, definitive victory for either party.

MLK Tribute Shoe Backlash

Unlike the other three, the MLK tribute shoe controversy was a PR scandal, not a lawsuit, but it sparked intense debate over taste, race, and commercialization. In January 2026, Nike and LeBron James unveiled a special ‘Honor the King’ colorway of the LeBron 23 created to mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The issue involved cultural insensitivity and commercialization when Nike and LeBron James faced backlash over an MLK themed sneaker referencing the Lorraine Motel, the site of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, with critics arguing that the design crossed a line by turning a place of trauma into a commercial storytelling device. While no lawsuit was filed, the release drew significant public criticism across traditional media and social platforms, and although the controversy eventually faded without formal legal action, it left lasting reputational scars for the parties involved.