JOOLA Settles Gen 3 as Lawsuit Highlights Complexities of Paddle Certification
Sport Squad, the main arm of JOOLA, has settled the lawsuit filed against the company. Said lawsuit, filed in Florida in the US, alleges that JOOLA misled customers into purchasing Gen 3 paddles at full price under the false pretence of certification. The lawsuit further alleges that JOOLA falsely advertised that the Gen 3 paddles were approved by the USA Pickleball Association (USA-P) when they weren’t.
What Happened?
For more context, the plaintiff was one Gregory Matus, who filed a class-action lawsuit in June 2024 (Case Matus v. Sport Squad, Inc.) alleging that consumers were misled into purchasing these paddles at full price under the false pretence of certification.
JOOLA naturally denied wrongdoing and filed a separate lawsuit against USA-P, this time arguing that USA-P’s revocation was unfair and harmed consumers and the company. USA-P responded in kind with its own lawsuit that claimed JOOLA knowingly sold altered versions of the paddles—different from the certified prototypes—and therefore misled players and the public.
What was settled recently was Matus v. Sport Squad, and it benefits consumers who own the following:
- Tyson McGuffin Magnus 3 14mm
- Tyson McGuffin Magnus 3 16mm
- Collin Johns Scorpeus 3 16mm
- Anna Bright Scorpeus 3 14mm
- Simone Jardim Hyperion 3 16mm
- Ben Johns Hyperion 3 16mm
- Ben Johns Hyperion 3 14mm
- Ben Johns Perseus 3 14mm
- Ben Johns Perseus 3 16mm
As such, class members who can provide proof of purchase can receive a refund of USD $300. On the other hand, class members who do not have proof of purchase can receive a USD $150 gift code to use on JOOLA’s website. Class members must submit a valid form by 15 December. Click here for more information.
The Fallout: What the Settlement Means
For consumers who purchased these paddles thinking they were certified, this settlement provides a fair remedy, and they are by and large the main beneficiaries. For JOOLA, on the other hand, settling may limit further legal exposure, but public trust and brand reputation are at stake.
But, in the bigger picture, this case highlights issues in product certification and consumer expectations even if the dispute was settled amicably. This is especially true when governing bodies like USA-P grant approval based on prototypes, but the actual retail versions differ.
What’s more, this legal dispute has put the spotlight on the complexities of paddle certification and might even set a precedent in how paddle manufacturers manage certifications, how transparent they need to be about design changes, and how governing bodies enforce consistency.
(The UPA-A was again in the centre of a paddle certification controversy lately, and Pickleball News Asia broke it down piece by piece in Episode 2 of the Nasty Nelson PNA Podcast. You can watch it HERE, and don’t forget to click SUBSCRIBE while you’re at it!)
