The legal dispute between JOOLA and USA Pickleball over the decertification of the Gen3 JOOLA paddle has entered its second year. USA Pickleball decertified the Gen3 paddles about one year ago. JOOLA responded with a June 12, 2024 lawsuit. 

 

JOOLA’s lawsuit had a couple of basic allegations. First, JOOLA argued that USA Pickleball did not follow their own internal rules in making the decertification. Specifically, USA Pickleball’s own equipment guidelines state that a paddle, once approved, cannot be decertified until after USA Pickleball provides the manufacturer with 18 months notice. Second, JOOLA asserted that the Gen3 paddles as approved were, in all relevant terms, identical to the Gen3 paddles as actually marketed. JOOLA disputed USA Picklaball’s assertions that JOOLA had submitted one paddle during the approval process and then did a bait and switch by marketing a paddle with dramatically different qualities.

 

USA Pickleball’s initial response in the lawsuit was to file a motion to dismiss in July, 2024. As I wrote at the time, the motion had no real shot at success. Such motions are routinely denied. However, defendants frequently file such motions either as a delaying tactic or, to be perfectly honest, as a way for the lawyers to bill some extra hours.

 

In any event, the USA Pickleball motion did delay the proceedings, substantially. It was not ruled upon until February 3, 2025. It was, of course, denied. But it did have the effect of delaying the case by about seven months, so if that was the intent, it worked.

 

This all brings us to the latest development, which was the substantive answer by USA Picklaball to the original lawsuit. It was filed April 18, 2025, more than 10 months after the initial lawsuit, and over a year since the dispute arose. USA Pickleball chose to both answer and to file a counterclaim.

 

 

As expected, the answer just basically denied JOOLA’s lawsuit allegations. The counterclaim is more interesting. In the counterclaim, USA Pickleball takes a very aggressive stance, asserting JOOLA submitted one type of paddle for approval, and then knowingly and intentionally switched the internal makeup of the Gen3 before marketing the paddle. USA Pickleball maintains that JOOLA knew all along it was doing a bait and switch, with the Gen3 as marketed being a paddle that JOOLA knew could not be approved. USA Pickleball aggressively asserts that JOOLA was knowingly committing a fraudulent scheme the entire time.

 

JOOLA obviously seeks damages from USA Pickleball in the initial lawsuit. By filing an answer and a counterclaim, USA Pickleball is now not only denying it owes JOOLA anything, but is also seeking damages in turn. Interestingly, both sides damages claims are largely based on theories about JOOLA’s Gen3 profits. JOOLA seeks millions of dollars in allegedly lost profits, while USA Pickleball wants the court to force JOOLA to disgorge Gen3 profits improperly gained. Both sides also add various claims for damages, including for punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

 

So, what is the bottom line on all this? While the allegations include aggressive language and claims for $200 million get a lot of press, the actual fact is that this case is still in a very early stage and the court documents do not tell us very much we did not already know a year ago. The central dispute in this case still boils down to the same two points made a year ago, before JOOLA even filed the lawsuit. First, did JOOLA’s Gen3 as marketed substantively differ from the Gen3 prototypes submitted for approval? Second, regardless of the answer to the first question, does USA Pickleball’s 18 month decertification rule apply? JOOLA is claiming there is no substantive difference between the paddles as submitted and as marketed, and that either way, USA Picklleball must follow the 18-month decertification process. USA Pickleball claims that the paddles as marketed have important differences from the prototypes, especially regarding foam that creates an illegal trampoline effect. USA Pickleball further claims that JOOLA’s bait and switch tactics mean that the 18-month rule does not apply.

 

After more than one year for this dispute, we remain in the same place we started. This is and always has been a legal dispute that can and should settle early on. The outlines of a deal have always been possible, but it gets more difficult as time passes. Each side runs up a lot of attorney fees and costs, and eventually in a lawsuit like this, those fees and costs become the driving force, even more so than the underlying dispute. Lawyers for both sides need to be brutally honest with their clients about the downside risk of this type of litigation and the costs. I remember one particular case in my 30+ year long legal career where I told the client at the start of the lawsuit that they should settle now, and pay $5m. I told them that if they did not do that, they would pay me $1m in fees and spend another $1m on experts, and that they would end up paying $5m to settle in two years. After two years of litigation, and over $1m in fees and another $1m in expert fees, we settled for $5m. Sometimes the client is just stubborn, but the best attorneys do not just tell the client what they want to hear, they also describe the realistic downside risk. Here, both sides have massive downside risk, which should be motivating an early settlement before each side incurs lots of litigation costs. Unfortunately, the last year has done nothing to advance settlement, but instead the litigation costs have likely moved the parties further apart.

 

My expectation is that the lawsuit will soon enter the discovery stage. That will allow both sides to request information from the other side, including documents and witness interviews. The internal documents on both sides should be very revealing. Will they show JOOLA knew and intended a bait and switch? Will they show USA Pickleball changed their requirements in response to public pressure and invented an excuse after the fact to decertify the paddle? Internal emails created at the relevant time will potentially be game changers. The information to date is nowhere near as important as what can and will be learned from each side accessing the other side’s internal documents. Get your popcorn ready as we move toward that new part of the lawsuit.

 

Follow me on X @pickleball_jim