Corporations

“Heel-to-Toe” in the U.S., Except for the Parts Made in the Dominican Republic and Brazil

A footwear brand told customers its boots were “handcrafted 100%” in the United States, heel-to-toe. A federal complaint traces components to factories in the Dominican Republic and Brazil.

Oak Street Manufacturing Company, doing business as Oak Street Bootmakers, told customers its boots, loafers, and moccasins were “handcrafted 100%” in the United States — that the “entire product” was made domestically “from heel-to-toe, using no pre-assembled components from overseas,” and that its footwear was “More than Made in USA™.” A federal complaint alleges that, since at least May 2023, the company used a factory in the Dominican Republic to produce the upper portion of certain footwear and sourced outsoles from a factory in Brazil.DOCUMENTED

Those foreign-made pieces were then shipped to a U.S. facility, where in most cases the uppers and outsoles were assembled into finished footwear, according to the complaint.DOCUMENTED But the complaint goes further: in some instances, Oak Street allegedly did not complete final assembly with U.S.-based contractors at all, instead sending components to a Dominican Republic factory to perform the “bottoming” process — the step that joins the upper to the sole — outside the United States entirely.DOCUMENTED

Key facts
  • The FTC's complaint was filed against Oak Street Manufacturing Company, LLC, doing business as Oak Street Bootmakers, in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois.
  • The company advertised its footwear as “handcrafted 100%” in the U.S. and “More than Made in USA™.”
  • The complaint alleges uppers were produced at a Dominican Republic factory and outsoles sourced from a Brazilian factory since at least May 2023.
  • In some instances, final “bottoming” assembly was allegedly completed in the Dominican Republic rather than the United States.
  • The action follows a July 2025 warning letter the FTC previously sent to the company regarding its origin claims.
  • The settlement provides $75,000 toward consumer redress.

What “heel-to-toe” was supposed to mean

The specificity of Oak Street's marketing language is part of what made the case notable. “Handcrafted 100%” and “from heel-to-toe” are not vague aspirational phrases — they are concrete representations about a manufacturing process, ones a consumer could reasonably expect to be verifiable.REVIEWED Under the FTC's Made in USA Labeling Rule, an unqualified domestic-origin claim requires that the product be “all or virtually all” made in the United States, meaning final assembly, all significant processing, and substantially all component sourcing must occur domestically.REVIEWED

The complaint alleges that Oak Street's supply chain did not meet that standard for at least two structural reasons: the uppers came from a Caribbean factory, and the outsoles came from a South American one.DOCUMENTED Even setting aside the instances where bottoming itself allegedly occurred abroad, sourcing the two principal components of a boot — the part that covers the foot and the part that touches the ground — from overseas factories is difficult to reconcile with a claim that the entire product was handcrafted domestically.

A pattern the company had already been warned about

The FTC's enforcement action against Oak Street was not its first contact with the company over these claims. The agency sent Oak Street a warning letter in July 2025 specifically flagging concerns about its “Made in USA” representations.DOCUMENTED The subsequent complaint and settlement, filed roughly nine months later, indicates the company's marketing claims persisted, or at least were not adequately remedied, following that initial notice — a sequence that mirrors how the agency handled a separate flag-seller case announced the same day, where an earlier warning letter also preceded formal action.REVIEWED

Terms of the settlement

Under the proposed stipulated order, Oak Street must provide $75,000 toward consumer redress and is prohibited from making misrepresentations about its products, including future U.S.-origin claims, or from making misleading or unsubstantiated country-of-origin claims of any kind.DOCUMENTED The Commission's vote to issue the complaint and proposed order was 1-0-1, with one commissioner recused from the matter.DOCUMENTED

The complaint alleges that in some cases, the step joining a boot's upper to its sole — the final “bottoming” process — was completed in the Dominican Republic, not the United States.

What the case signals for smaller manufacturers

Oak Street's settlement is the smallest in dollar terms of the three Made in USA cases the FTC announced together in April 2026, but the underlying allegation is arguably the most granular: a component-by-component account of where, specifically, a supposedly all-American product was actually made.REVIEWED For smaller manufacturers using contract factories abroad for even a portion of production — a common practice in footwear and other consumer goods — the case underscores that a domestic final-assembly step does not, by itself, entitle a company to an unqualified “Made in USA” claim if the components joined at that step were sourced or processed overseas.

The gap between marketing language and supply chains

Footwear manufacturing has long involved globally distributed supply chains even for brands that market a strong domestic identity, since specialized tanning, cutting, and soling operations are often concentrated in specific regions abroad regardless of where a company's headquarters or final assembly sits.REVIEWED That reality does not excuse an unqualified “Made in USA” claim under the FTC's standard — it simply means companies marketing bootmaking as a wholly domestic craft need supply-chain documentation precise enough to back that specific claim, not just general confidence that most of their business happens in the United States.

The prior July 2025 warning letter gives this case a useful before-and-after quality: regulators flagged the same claims once, informally, and the company's public marketing appears to have continued largely unchanged in the months that followed, based on the timeline the FTC itself lays out. For companies that receive a Made in USA warning letter, the Oak Street case is a concrete illustration of what follows when the underlying claims are not revised — a formal complaint, a court-filed order, and a public settlement rather than a private compliance conversation. It is a sequence other footwear and apparel sellers marketing domestic craftsmanship would be wise to treat as a cautionary timeline rather than a hypothetical one. The recusal of one commissioner from the Oak Street vote, noted in the Commission's own announcement, is a reminder that even routine-seeming labeling cases sometimes carry individual conflicts that shape how a matter is resolved procedurally, separate from the underlying merits of the allegations themselves.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.

Every Watchdog Journal investigation is built on primary documents and classified under our evidence standard.

Browse All Investigations →