JOOLA vs. USAP: Unpacking the Lawsuit Shaking Up Pickleball

Introduction

JOOLA has filed a lawsuit against the USA Pickleball Association (USAP), sparking significant discussion within the pickleball community. This post provides a detailed overview of the lawsuit, including JOOLA's claims and USAP's standards for equipment testing. I'll also explore the background of the dispute, the specific issues raised in the complaint, and the broader implications this case could have on equipment regulation and the sport's governance. Through this analysis, we'll uncover what this legal battle means for manufacturers, players, and the future of pickleball.

The Crux of the Matter

The complaint outlines that Joola submitted two prototype paddles for approval, paying the $3,000 fee, which USAP approved. Later, JOOLA submitted nine additional paddles for "similarity testing" to ensure that the marketed paddles were structurally identical to the approved prototypes.

As Jim Kloss explains, "JOOLA is saying that the similarity testing is not to see if the paddles meet the testing standards, as that has been done, it is only to make sure the marketed paddles are the same as the ones that were tested." (Jim Kloss, "EXPLAINING THE JOOLA LAWSUIT AGAINST USAP, AS FILED", https://www.facebook.com/share/p/c2HUTEsBscBTamra/)

JOOLA alleges that USAP found the marketed paddles acceptable. However, on May 15, 2024, USAP informed JOOLA that their Gen 3 paddles were being removed from the Approved Paddle List due to an incorrect submission by JOOLA as part of the similarity testing protocols. JOOLA maintains that "the Gen 3 paddles on the market are materially the same as models approved by USAP in September 2023" and "are confident that they are fully compliant with USAP's standards."

USAP's Equipment Standards and Testing Process

To understand the context of this dispute, it's essential to examine USAP's equipment standards and testing process. The USAP Equipment Standards Manual outlines specific criteria for paddles, including:

1. Material: "The paddle must be made of any material deemed safe and not prohibited by these rules. The paddle shall be made of rigid, non-compressible material meeting the criteria located on the USA Pickleball website." (Section 2.E.1)
2. Surface roughness: "The paddle's hitting surface shall not contain holes, indentations, rough texturing, or any objects or features that allow a player to impart excessive spin on the ball." (Section 2.E.2)
3. Size: "The combined length and width, including any edge guard and butt cap, shall not exceed 24 inches (60.96 cm). The paddle length cannot exceed 17 inches (43.18 cm). There is no restriction on paddle thickness." (Section 2.E.3)
4. Prohibited features: "Anti-skid paint or any paint textured with sand, rubber or vinyl compounds or any material that causes additional spin," "Rubber and synthetic rubber," "Sandpaper characteristics," among others. (Section 2.E.6)

USAP utilizes a third-party testing facility to ensure that approved equipment meets these rigorous standards. The manual states, "USA Pickleball reviews equipment testing standards periodically and, with proper notification to manufacturers, reserves the right to modify equipment specifications as needed to maintain the integrity of the game." (Section 2.F.3, Note)

JOOLA's Response and Legal Action

Following USAP's decision to remove the Gen 3 paddles from the Approved Paddle List, JOOLA worked to resolve the issue. In their May 24, 2024 statement, JOOLA said, "Immediately upon being informed of USAP's decision to remove its Gen 3 paddles from the Approved Paddles list on May 15, 2024, we have worked quickly and meticulously to follow the guidelines as presented by USAP to recertify our Gen 3 paddles."

However, USAP informed JOOLA that they were unable to expedite the testing process and could not provide a timeline for completion. In response, JOOLA announced that they would offer full refunds for Gen 3 paddles purchased between April 16 and June 15, 2024, stating, "While we are confident the current Gen 3 paddles are materially and structurally the same as those approved by USAP in September 2023 and therefore comply with USAP standards, we care deeply about our customers and the inconvenience and confusion the USAP decision has caused."

On June 12, 2024, JOOLA filed a lawsuit against USAP in the United States District Court for Maryland, asserting that their Gen 3 paddles are compliant with all applicable published rules and should not have been removed from the Approved Paddle List. JOOLA stated, "We firmly believe our Gen 3 paddles are compliant with all applicable published rules (as evidenced by their prior approval) and should not have been removed from the Approved Paddle List."

Jim Kloss notes, "JOOLA spends A LOT of time in their complaint pointing out that USAP did not comply with USAP's own 18 month rule, requiring de-listing only occur on 18 months' notice. As I have said all along, the 18 month rule is a very strong argument for JOOLA." (Jim Kloss, "EXPLAINING THE JOOLA LAWSUIT AGAINST USAP, AS FILED", https://www.facebook.com/share/p/c2HUTEsBscBTamra/)

The Potential Impact on the Sport

This lawsuit raises important questions about the role of governing bodies in regulating equipment standards and the impact of such decisions on manufacturers, players, and the sport as a whole. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of pickleball equipment regulation and the relationship between manufacturers and USAP.

One key point of contention may be the "18 months' notice" requirement for revoking approval of equipment, as stated in Section 2.F.1 of the USAP Equipment Standards Manual. It remains to be seen how this provision will be interpreted and applied in the context of the JOOLA lawsuit.

As Jim Kloss suggests, "If you are USAP and you bring this complaint to a decent and honest lawyer, the lawyer would likely say the following:

1. The cost to defend this suit is going to be something like $500k, and maybe more. You will need various expert witnessses and each of them will be expensive. If the court orders expedited discovery on the injunction request, that will raise the costs. The injunction request may involve an early mini-trial; if that happens, the costs will be higher.
2. The case is filed in Maryland. As I warned you early on, the plaintiff has the advantage of filing where they think they get home field advantage. JOOLA is based in Maryland, so they picked home field. They also picked a place far from USAP's home, so there will be a lot of travel costs in this lawsuit, again raising the cost to defend." (Jim Kloss, "EXPLAINING THE JOOLA LAWSUIT AGAINST USAP, AS FILED", https://www.facebook.com/share/p/c2HUTEsBscBTamra/)

Conclusion

The JOOLA lawsuit against USAP is a complex case that touches on issues of equipment standards, testing processes, and the role of governing bodies in maintaining the integrity of the sport. As the pickleball community awaits the resolution of this legal dispute, it is clear that the outcome will have far-reaching consequences for players, manufacturers, and the future of the game.

While equipment standards are essential for ensuring fair competition and preserving the nature of pickleball, it is crucial that the process for establishing and enforcing these standards is transparent, consistent, and allows for open communication between all stakeholders. As the sport continues to grow and evolve, finding the right balance between innovation and regulation will be key to its long-term success.

The pickleball community will undoubtedly be watching this case closely, as it has the potential to shape the future of equipment regulations and the relationship between manufacturers and governing bodies. As an enthusiast of the sport, I hope that all parties involved can work towards a resolution that prioritizes the best interests of pickleball and its players.