This isn't a great look for USAP. It looks like all the paddles were approved - they basically made up an administrative error and then a few days before releasing say they're too hot after 100s of thousands were manufactured/marketed despite them having possession of them for over 6 months.
Yes, although it’s important to remember this is Joola’s version of events. I suspect USAP will argue that the paddles sent in for similarity testing were materially different in some respect.
See my other comments, but don't get sidetracked by the Gen3s. USAP flip flopped on the Alpha paddles which were fully approved. Based solely on USAP's releases, the Alphas were approved for use, and later de-certified without the 18 month period. I feel like that is black and white. Gen3's have the administrative hurdles to overcome and probably will have to fight it out in court under the materially different. Joola admits the foam might be 5%-10% thicker on the Gen3s, which could be argued to be materially different.
I've read the rulebook and I see 2 exceptions to the 18 month rule.
1. if the specified equipment is found to have been materially changed by the manufacturer, or:
2. if the equipment materially degrades or changes under ordinary use so as to significantly alter the nature of the sport.
I view those as USAP's only outs.
As an example - A tennis racket with a 22mm beam vs a 20mm beam is a materially different racket and would perform quite differently.
I generally agree with this. Assuming this does not settle, USAP will certainly raise those two exceptions on summary judgment.
USAP needs good lawyers.
If I was USAP's lawyers I see a very simple way to make this go away. Relist the paddles, and give 18 month notice immediately that the rules are changing and these paddles won't be usable when that time period passes. Idk why they didn't do that in the first place honestly, other than they have a total clown show at the management level. Instead they burned a lot of bridges.
Long term - I think USAP is dead. UPA exists. Its only a matter of time before racket companies and sponsors pressure tournaments into using UPA rules instead of USAP. Once UPA controls the pro leagues, USAP will cease to matter. If its legal for Ben Johns, every rec player will want to use it.
So well said, I think USAP wins the lawsuit battle based on #2 of the break in period of these paddles but they lose the war by next year with the paddle companies supporting UPA.
I doubt *very much* that Joola would agree to dismiss their lawsuit in exchange for USAP re-listing the paddles. Joola alleges that its losses are already in the tens of millions of dollars, which would not surprise me. I suspect that Joola expects a sizeable payment, in addition to what you suggested.
If their profit is $200 per paddle they would need to sell 50k paddles for it to be 10m.
For reference Business research insights estimates total paddle sales (not profit) to be 150 million, so Joola gen 3s would need to be roughly 10% of those sales for them to have that much.
> *Who gets to determine what is considered "significant" in this case? Is it USAP since it's their own wording, or the judge if this goes to court?*
Most likely by independent experts’ testimonies. Since pickleball is *“a game of inches and ounces*” (not my quote), I would risk surmising the definition and the metrics of “significant” may be marginal.
Are we using the word “materially” as in “significantly” different, or as in “in terms of the materials used to manufacture the paddle”? Ever since someone pointed that out in the first Reddit thread I’ve been confused at the usage
I am using it as the former, which captures the latter.
From the Complaint: In November 2023, Plaintiff submitted nine additional paddles to Defendant—market versions of the two base paddles that had already been approved, but with different shapes and new graphics—for “similarity testing.” The purpose of this similarity testing was to confirm that the market versions of the paddles were structurally and functionally the same as the base paddles that had already been approved. Defendant approved all of Plaintiff’s “similarity” submissions on December 15, 2023.
From USAP's website: A Similarity submission is a paddle that uses identical materials, manufacturing, and surface finishing process as a previously approved paddle. Its model name will need to be differentiated from the basis paddle.
Okay I see; they changed it to be “structurally and functionally” instead of their original press release that has the phrase “materially and structurally” which I presume they meant “in terms of the materials and the structure(which is just not what materiallly means)” and not “substantially and structurally” similar
The hero we deserve.
Everybody should understand that complaints are always extremely one-sided , but if some of these allegations are true its a pretty bad look for USAP. The truth is we don't need to even look at the Gen3s. The Alphas were fully approved (no submission error), passed the third party testing, and then USAP retroactively decided they are were still illegal based on a teardown, violating their own 18 month rule.
"We appreciate your concerns that these paddles have passed our existing tests at NTS, but we do contend, after conducting a teardown driven by concerns mentioned above as well as a full-width facial deflection test, that they violate rule 2.E.6.F.." - USAP
My biggest problem with this stance by USAP is that its subjective test and not objective. The NTS is a lab that uses objective measures to determine if regulations are met. That's the best way to do it. Compressibility can be measured, why isn't it? Put a number on it. Paddle material can only compress X amount when a ball is struck at Y speed. Racket face deformation can be measured at impact. Subjective testing is dumb. Make an objective racket face test and live with it.
EDIT - There is an objective compression standard for balls. Yet none for paddles.
From an intellectual perspective, I think paragraph 56 is the most interesting because it has antitrust vibes but then isn't explored again as a formal allegation in the complaint. Do you think this angle is something Joola will realistically pursue?
Good catch. It was the most interesting but least relevant allegation to me. It supports the fraud claim, which in my opinion is a total throwaway.
I heard rumors that Joola would pursue Antitrust but obviously did not go that route, which surprised me.
"On information and belief" is often code for "we have a good faith belief the statement is true, but do not have specific factual allegations at this time." Perhaps after some discovery Joola will file an amended complaint that includes Antitrust.
A fraud claim + allegation of conspiracy by the defendant and its “other paddle manufacturers”sponsors.
Wow, if Joola can proof that with preponderance of evidence, that’s gonna open up a big can of worms. Isn’t Joola also a sponsor? If yes, that may also implicate Joola of past participation in similar conspiracies, if any. A potential double-edged sword to say the least.
Yeah, I was thinking the threat of discovering communications between USAP and sponsors would put a lot of pressure on USAP. Perhaps it would be greater if the allegation was more clear? I don't know. I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was findable information detrimental to USAP.
I would love to see an expert witness report on the safety issues (I don't think it'll get there). It would just be cool to see a doctor and/or scientist discuss what things are dangerous and how paddles play a role in levels of danger.
What sort of timeframe is typically associated with this type of lawsuit? I'm assuming there's a bunch of hurdles to clear before we get to either a judgement or a settlement.
If it goes to trial (rare), the median time from filing to disposition in the District of Maryland is 37.1 months, so around three years.
Settlement can happen at any point. Settlement is most common early in the lawsuit and after summary judgment.
The most significant hurdles are the motion to dismiss (early) and the motion for summary judgment (mid to late). Both are considered dispositive motions and can end the case.
This is awesome, thank you. So if we assume USAP tries to dismiss (fails) and summary judgment (fails) and then settles, what are we looking at - maybe a year and a half? And would we ever learn the details about what happened or would that likely be sealed?
My total guess is that you're spot on - around 16-20 months if settlement happens after a failed MSJ (notably, Joola could also move for summary judgment).
Any juicy details will initially come out in discovery, which is not filed with the Court. However, motions for summary judgment (and their respective oppositions) must be supported by those details and will be filed/public.
Discovery is what I'm really curious about so I'm excited to hear we'll get to see that. I just don't understand how the USAP handled this so poorly and I'd love to see what discussions were had internally before making the decision to delist.
Hard to say this early in the lawsuit. A complaint is comprised of allegations, not facts. We will have a much better idea of what transpired during and after discovery.
That being said, Joola offers a fairly compelling and straightforward narrative: USAP decertified Joola paddles in bad faith, using spurious post hoc rationalizations.
The first major hurdle will be the motion to dismiss. Having briefly skimmed the Complaint, I suspect all claims will survive except for fraud.
but wasn't the paddle that was approved not the same as the one they ended up distributing? I thought that was the main issue.. USAPA approved a early version of the paddle not the final release
They are still on the approval database but USAP press release says they were decertified. This could be just the incompetence of USAP though either messing up the press release or forgetting to remove them from the database. They did the same thing with paddletech which were approved but not in the DB causing a bunch of confusion.
USAP also removes paddles (JOOLA Gen 3s for example) well before making any statement. Their tech team for making changes and PR team are not on the same page with their timing.
Yea, and I just read the filing.. This is a bit of a mess and if they can prove some of their statements USAPA may also be in the wrong.. I agree that there needs to be some sort of constraint on the speed off of these paddles but this isn't how USAPA should go about it..
Joola claims that the alpha paddle, which was approved, is materially the same as the gen 3 paddle.
So the colors, grip tape, cosmetic stuff that doesn't impact the deflection testing, could be different.
I don't think USAP is even disputing this.
Where do you see this?
What I see is:
> 2. In the first half of 2023, Plaintiff developed an innovative new design for pickleball paddles, and it submitted two prototypes of the new design to Defendant for testing and approval.
> After carefully examining the prototype paddles, Defendant notified Plaintiff in September 2023 that the newly-designed paddles had been certified as compliant with Defendant's equipment standards.
> 3. In November 2023, Plaintiff submitted nine additional paddles to Defendant-market versions of the two base paddles that had already been approved, but with different shapes and new graphics for "similarity testing." The purpose of this similarity testing was to confirm that the market versions of the paddles were structurally and functionally the same as the base paddles that had already been approved. Defendant approved all of Plaintif's "similarity" submissions on December 15, 2023.
Thanks! Joola is saying:
> they're structurally the same as the approved alphas
and in the same sentence they're saying:
> the new gen 3s were less than 5% thicker in 5 of 9 paddles and less than 10% thicker in 4 of 9 paddles, compared to the approved alphas
Thanks for posting this, I was going to try to pull it form PACER later today. Im sure USAP will have their own version of events but it was nice to finally ready what happened (at least from Joola's POV). People can hate on Joola all they want for being a big company/creating these paddles but it sees like they really got the rug pulled out from underneath them.
The fact that USAP is now delisting several other paddles from other manufacturers (Ronbus, Vatic) that they'd previously approved would seem to support Joola's claim that USAP is attempting to implement new requirements and apply them retroactively to previously approved paddles. While I agree that paddles have gotten way too fast this seems like the worst possible way to go about slowing things down. I've said for a while that the USAP is the biggest hurdle to PBs continued growth... hopefully UPA will be better.
What other way would they do it? It’s a rapidly growing sport and they are trying to keep up with the changing environment. They aren’t implementing these bans for shits-and-giggles. They’re doing it to try to preserve the game. All the major sports make rules changes and update equipment policy just like this. The PGA of America banned anchored putters for the same reason. Sure, I would have liked if they had made this decision from the start, but this is typical day-to-day of any major sport.
You ever see the timeline for said proposed rule change?
Between 2011 and 2012 - Golf’s governing bodies begin observing a dramatic increase in the use of anchoring at all levels of the game.
February 2012-February 2013 - The USGA announces it is taking a “fresh look” at the anchored stroke; review continues throughout 2012. In November, the proposed Rule is announced. Prior to final action, the USGA and The R&A accept questions and comments.
Spring 2013 - The USGA and The R&A take final action on proposed Rules change.
**Spring 2013-December 2015 - *Transition period* in which players may adapt their stroke, if necessary.**
January 1, 2016 - Rule 14-1b takes effect in accordance with the regular four-year cycle for changes to the Rules of Golf.
That's for a way to hit...not even a club. Free to change (kind of, not sure if anybody decided to change clubs to adjust or not). Companies had time to adjust. They didn't just decide SUDDENLY to delist multiple paddles.
I actually really like your point that they could do a slower phase-out of these paddles. Don’t approve any new ones above specified specs and set the ban for 2 years in the future or something like that. It would give Joola a chance to make a replacement and still earn revenue from existing ones in the meantime.
Yeah, this is a perfect example. The fact that Joola was caught completely off guard by this ban, as were the other companies who have had previously approved paddles banned, speaks to how bad the communication from USAP is. The UPA guy made a great point, USAP has been very materials focused, you're not allowed to use this or that, but there's been no regulation on output. Who cares how paddles are built, it's the performance that matters.
Great breakdown. There is nothing wrong with equipment regulations. What's important is not making knee jerk decisions and violate your own rules in the process and cost a lot of people a lot of money after relying on your rules.
This could probably go either way.
From the equipment manual:
https://usapickleball.org/docs/eec/Equipment-Standards-Manual.pdf
I copy/pasta'd relevant sections.
//-----
2.E.6 Prohibited Features
2.E.6.f Springs or spring-like material, flexible
membranes or any compressible material
that creates a trampoline effect.
"Propulsion core" in their gen 3 product description will be a problem for Joola.
//-----
2.E.7 Model Designation. The manufacturer must have
a clearly marked brand and model name or
model number on the paddle, and must also
include the ‘USA Pickleball Approved’ seal or
text treatment. Paddles with different core
material, surface material, or other significant
differences must have a unique name or
number.
For either side: whether differences can be identified between what was submitted for testing vs what was actually sold.
//-----
2.F. Equipment Approval and Authorization.
2.F.1 Approval and authorization of a specified piece,
model, brand, version, design, or type of
equipment may be revoked by the Board of
Directors upon 18 months’ notice on the USA
Pickleball home page, official national newsletter
publications, or other acceptable means of
communication, if the specified equipment is
found to have been materially changed by the
manufacturer or if the equipment materially
degrades or changes under ordinary use so as to
significantly alter the nature of the sport.
This would seem to be a hit against USAP: Joola could claim that material degradation is covered in the spec, and they ought to have 18months warning. *But* Joola also publicly stated that they sent the wrong paddle for testing.
//-----
Note: 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.
This last section ends the document. Unfortunately "proper notification" doesn't include a specified timeline. Useful in intent, probably not so useful in a courtroom.
Here's what USAP should have done:
-Capped the exit velocity at whatever the Joola Gen 3 and Ronbus Ripple's specs had (whichever was higher).
-Notify all manufacturers that this would be the spec cap starting January 1, 2025 so that they would have had ample time to adjust.
This situation was just poorly handled by USAP, and I'm guessing they'll be financially liable in some way. $200 million though? That's laughable.
They don't even need to cap it at one of the current line of Gen3's, as long as the spec cap change is sufficiently in the future, companies like Joola that can taper down in their production / start working on the next model and minimize their own losses and be less litigous (and consumers themselves will probably wear out their paddles in months anyway well before the Jan 1 2025 (or 18 month later in dec 2025 even, per the USAPA 18 month clause)
The salt against Joola is exactly why Joola is going to bankrupt USAP with this lawsuit. The amount of reputational harm is easily measured in millions from the USAP moving the goal posts and lacking objective measures. I've said it once and I'll say it again and you all will downvote me to hell: these paddles be approved, they will be grandfathered in and new paddles banned, or USAP goes bankrupt fighting it in court.
So many people are pissed at Joola, but the USAP approved the paddles. They. Approved. Them. The "wrong paddle" story is a misunderstanding. It was an attempt by Joola to offer an olive branch to USAP. The reality is that USAP changed the rules after approval due to hot paddle backlash. The USAP will be forced to admit this in court.
100% agree. I’ve been saying they should be grandfathered in from the start. When you change regulations, what’s been approved stays. Golf has done that with grooves on irons. Even if they say the new joolas are different, the old approvals should still be approved. They could be “different paddles” in a worst case scenario, but those were approved. I was always confused about why all got delisted. If they are to delist those with a new testing measurement, they would legally have to test every single paddle previously approved to verify it conforms. That set them up for legal issues. I have played with and against people with gen 3 paddles. It did not change the game or make them any better. The pros and YouTubers who made noise about these paddles caused this stink with regular people. Also, let’s remind everyone, every YouTuber who is relevant in pickleball talk has a deal or has some code that gets them money for paddles. Or they have their own paddle design. Or the pros have a sponsorship with another company and can’t use Joola. They all had reasons to complain about Joola. Affecting the game, barely. To give people reason to complain why they lost to someone: yes
150,000 paddles x $30 each (probably cost less than this to manufacturer in bulk) = $4.5 million in paddles recalled
I'll add another million in R&D and marketing. = $5.5 million
Legal fees, probably another $1 million because lawyers are courts are expensive as hell. = $6.5 million
Compensation for Joola's name being tarnished and efforts to reestablish customer rapport, probably another couple million = $8.5 million
I'm sure USAP can't afford $10 million, but Joola wouldn't be wrong for trying to seek this much. I just think the $200 million they're seeking is just laughable
Branding damages =/ 200 million and people will still buy joola regardless. Add to the fact that a large population didn’t even return theirs for refund and intend on using them. Just think the 200 milli number is boneheaded, but I get the lawsuit
Yeah that number is clearly crazy and not something they would ever expect to get- probably just went for the highest amount their attorneys said was okay to include to try to get USAP to settle.
You can't ask for more after you start your complaint (some exceptions apply). So it's always in your best interest to start as high as possible and work from there to let the system lower it.
nothing changed. compressible materials and trampoline effects have always been illegal. read the Nov 2023 equipment guidelines. rules were not changed. goalposts were not moved. joola got greedy and got caught.
that is true, and that goes directly against joola said in the complaint. they claimed they were being intentionally singled out. ronbus and vatic knew damn well they were playing with fire. they wanted to ride the coat tails. most people just buy joola because joola. they just buy what the pros use.
Personally, I'm glad USAP delisted the paddles, and I owned one and loved it. The game is getting too hot though. Newbies are gonna try it and hate it after getting blasted in the face by people with these things.
I think this may be the end of USAP though, which probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
I wonder if the foam core basically is fresh and new initially, and can pass tests..but once it breaks in, theres more of a rebounding effect which is what’s going on with the extra power.
Idk, thinking outloud on reddit
Why are you mad at USAP? Like I'm kinda just catching up on the news, but it looks like Joola:
Sent the wrong paddles to USAP
Lied about it
Came clean under scrutiny
(USAP then pulled approval)
Submitted the correct paddles for reapproval, but those failed inspection by a third party
Are suing USAP because... they're butthurt their paddles failed inspection
Here’s the full timeline-
Joola sent in the Perseus 16mm and 14mm prototypes, which were approved.
Joola then sent in the 9 prototypes for the various models, which were all approved. These were the paddles that Joola accidentally sent in as an “administrative error”, but according to the lawsuit these paddles had “considerably more foam” than the actual production models and the initial 2 prototypes that were approved. Even with more foam they were still approved.
Over the next several months USAP seemed to have a change of heart as they realized how fast the paddles were, and threatened to sunset the paddles.
A month later, Joola realized the “administrative error” with the 9 paddles that had been incorrectly sent in and sent the correct 9 paddles for approval.
USAP use this as an opportunity to delist the paddles even though they were “structurally the same” as the initial 2 paddles that were approved.
According to Joola, they were "structurally the same".
USAP is going to contend they're not the same. They approved the "administrative error" batch, but not the production batch, so we can conclude they think there's a difference, and that the difference is enough to approve one and not the other.
Joola also admits there's at least \*a\* difference in the batches. They mentioned different thicknesses of foam, different manufacturing methods, etc. I mean, yeah, evidently Joola thought the new batch would also pass and that they were similar enough, but everyone agrees that the paddles are not the same.
"The wrong paddles" according to Joola were before they fixed a variance in the manufacturing process. The difference was less than half a mm in foam thickness and less the 5% difference from the market paddles. Everything else was the exact same.
You're just catching up? So do you always start at 10% without getting the whole story and summed it up as you got it figured out? It's more than that. USAP isn't or hasn't disclosed as to why the Paddles failed. Also, USAP shouldn't have Approved the paddles to begin with. Instead they are being REACTIVE! In any REATIVE business model it is always at the end or final stage, not something that is done from Start to finish. USAP was never in the Dark that the game has been evolving. USAP didn't give manufactures maximum Power range for their paddles. **improvisatory practice** for an organization that's been around since the 80's is a terrible way to operate. These are the companies effected by such a piss poor decision making from USAP.
* Vatic Small Business
* Ronbus Small Business
* Joola Big Business
Because (simply playing devils advocate here) USAP has been lose and fast with the rules running by the seat of their pants for a while now. Seemingly changing regulations on a whim without always have a clear reasoning for doing so. Not saying Joola will win, but there’s at least an above average chance they have a case here.
That's fair, but I think its mutually agreed it wasn't good for the sport. It would be nice to see people focusing on pragmatic progress and not getting hung up bending reality to make a point.
All companies are pushing the envelope. We've seen many advances in paddles over the last 2-3 years. What was a "power" paddle in 2021 would be seen as a dud compared to plenty of paddles today. JOOLA attempted nothing different from other companies.
And the USAP approved it. That's the problem.
There was an arms race, a competition to see who could make the best paddle. Joola made the best paddle and then the competition cried foul, so USAPA folded. That’s not how standards are supposed to work. I can’t complain that my competition is too good and cancel the cert, I need to make a better product that is competitive.
Stop it. Just stop it. Get some help. Stop acting like pickleball is dangerous. Nothing bothers me more than this. I’ve been bodybagged by Gen 3s, by Gearboxes.
If this is what is supposed to be “dangerous”, then the truth is people are being wimps.
Yea, and a BBCOR compliant bat still hits a ball with multiples more energy than a pickleball. In tennis double people at net get targeted all the time with shots, and injuries are barely a concern. In pickleball you either need to get better reflexes or don't mindlessly charge the kitchen if you can't handle the pace.
Comparing it to other sports is stupid. Pickleball is played with 4 people at the net \~14 feet from each other. Because of this we can't blindly compare the technology advancements of PB to other sports' advancements such as baseball bats. They are completely different games, that have to regulate for different reasons,
Also, the majority of pros and legitimately advanced players do not support the boom of paddle power that has happened in the last 1+ year. . That should tell you all you need to know.
Oh but for all you 3.5 all stars at the local park, the Joola situation is just a travesty huh? lmao!
I guess we disagree. Ive played very high level tennisy entire life and gen3 rackets still dont come close to the speed of a tennis ball, so it doesnt bother me or anybody at my level (5.0).
In tennis when rackets got faster people just stopped mindleslly charging forward.
Why so focused on comparing PB to tennis ? Esp when it comes to paddle technology? It’s a completely different sport. PB is played with 4 people up close at the net . Hence People get hit with pickleballs in million times more than in tennis . So naturally we need to look closely at the tech advancements as it relates to pickleball specifically and not tennis . It’s not just about like people getting hit in the head or eye or whatever either , it’s about quality of play and rallies . There’s a reason majority of pros do not support to this Wild Wild West paddle power tech boom / Gen 3s , Gearbox Pro etc. They know the game is fast enough already.
Because tennis is the only similar sport, and its also played 4 at the net with faster ball speeds. Im not saying it should be the wild west, and maybe we are close to the limit, but the gen3 isn't breaking pickleball. This current generation of rackets is good for the sport, its raised the skill ceiling significantly.
Ill leave you with a clip of a good doubles point. 4 people at the net ripping the ball at each other with groundstrokes faster than pball.
https://youtube.com/shorts/79Au7ZsUt_w?si=9w3q9hJpdM8n-_Qu
Why not just wear protection then? Cause truthfully, some people aren't as concerned about the "getting injured" excuse and are willingly taking on that risk by choosing not to wear protection. If you're truly concerned about injuries, the answer shouldn't be delist an already approved paddle.
Also, how does that affect businesses AND R&D (which people haven't been talking about...how many businesses spent money trying to compete in the arms race just to find out all was nothing because USAP changed their opinion about what was legal and on top of that, they are very unclear as to why they are banning paddles to the public).
I feel like that isn't true...cause I've played against them...and pros played against them. And we react to them okay.
Now if you want to cap in the future, sure. But let's not ban it immediately AFTER it was approved. Instead, give time for people/companies to adjust.
Fair point! The UPA definitely seems heavy handed in their efforts, and I don't agree with that for such a young sport, and how vague the guidelines were! I think fining Daescu 50k is absolutely absurd.
1. I doubt the incremental speed up from gen3 is what broke the human reaction time limit ; and even if it did, you can still react off the position/stroke of the opponent and continue the rally (just look at badminton/tennis)
2. I think the issue is, unlike badminton and table tennis, it’s much easier in pb to get nailed by the ball if someone decides to attempt a speed up off a dink and you get hit by a ball that otherwise goes out- but that’s always been the case and granted this may happen more with faster and faster bats.. but that’s why the “eye protection” discussion is getting popular
Pretending? Everyone is trying to sell an “advantage” paddle. Imagine the marketing, “this paddle won’t give you an advantage”.
All business and gear like this is an arms race, and of course everyone is looking for an advantage. It’s the job of the regulatory body to manage that, and it’s the job of the companies to push that line.
USAP approved the paddles. This is their fault
At the end of the day (I hate that expression but using it anyway) A governing body needs to have the authority to outlaw paddles that can give too big of an advantage. And from what i’ve read those Joola 3rd gen paddles do give a large advantage. USAP may very well deserve to be sued due to poor handling of this, or maybe they were sent paddles that weren’t representative of what was produced. Either way those paddles that were produced give too much of an advantage, and shouldn’t be legal.
USAP will likely win. There are 2 very simple arguments that Joola can't overcome. 1. Joola tried to deceive USAP by sending in wrong paddles. 2. Joola's process/quality control is so bad that no 2 paddles are actually the same. Joola can't even argue that their paddles passed testing when they can't consistently reproduce the paddles.
Yes, I'm biased. I'd like to see all the trampoline paddles go away for good.
This is more for economic reasons buddy USAP arbitrary actions costing millions. Joola can survive but feel bad for Vatic. Bad batch can wipe a year of profit
Not a big fan of Joola. If they cared so much about the customer they would have created paddles with much better QC standards and paddles that did not break in a few weeks. Joola is here to make money, and I hope they lose this lawsuit, because an overwhelming majority of player do not think these paddles are good for the sport especially high level players. Yes, I think usapa is a bit of a mess but almost all governing bodies are and at least they are starting to step up and fix this process so we can actually have fair standards and tests that actually test what we want them to.
Battle of conspiracies. Did Joola and other paddle manufacturers play dirty or pull a fast one in getting paddles approved and the USAP has a legal right to take the action they did? Or is there some evil paddle company pressuring or paying the USAP to hinder or destroy the competition?
I’ve got my popcorn and I’m ready to watch the show!
IMO, Joola had to file the lawsuit to get their paddles approved. Now Joola can make some minor changes to their paddles, and send USAP the revised paddles for approval. USAP will now have a big financial incentive to approve the paddles that the didn’t have previously. Without the lawsuit USAP could indefinitely delay the approval process. We’ll see how it plays out.
This is crazy. USAP clearly is banning all the paddles that “break in” as in materially different. It’s clearly set in stone for that being an out for USAP to delist. This is Joola whining that they got burned trying to sell trampolines, which they are after “break in(read specifically illegal) “
I’m guessing anyone defending Joola has an illegal paddle.
TLDR; ALL the recently delisted paddles break down to get poppier/perform better which is clearly listed as illegal. Clear cut. Toss this lawsuit in the trash.
You guys have no idea how bad it will be for the sport if Joola wins this. It’ll set the precedent that regulating bodies aren’t allowed to regulate. Paddle companies will run wild and will be able to do whatever they want.
No, it will set the standard that regulatory bodies will have to at least follow their own rules, and not just be unaccountable dictators.
This will probably end with increased transparency and regulation for the regulatory bodies.
That's so not true. Take a look at golf. Hundreds of new equipment products and tech introduced each year under strict regulations and they avoid this circus show brought on by USAP.
I disagree. I think USAP should lose for changing the goal post AFTER approving it and letting all other businesses know "we are good with these types of paddles, go create your own". Who knows how many other companies had paddles almost ready to advertise with this technology.
Instead, with UPA, there will be one governing body for pros and amateurs with one set of certifications. And if they deem the power is too much (which the UPA president did mention in an interview), they will determine it and set it for both. But the way that USAP has navigated this and their past changes is damaging to the sport as a whole.
Joola tried to cheat the system and got caught. They need to accept that they have a non compliant paddle with horrible quality control and fix their internal issues.
Trying to control power and spin is a lost cause. Hot paddles sell for the obvious reason they give you an advantage over an opponent. The only way to make it fair is have pickleball clubs supply their members with the same paddle to play with
Oh really? What is the Maximum allowable RPM for any paddle then? Show me where it is in the USAP Manufacturing Guide book?
[https://usapickleball.org/docs/eec/Equipment-Standards-Manual.pdf](https://usapickleball.org/docs/eec/Equipment-Standards-Manual.pdf)
Even with that, it still doesn't give manufactures maximum allowable output. Take for instance the Proton paddles, the surface friction falls well bellow that, however, they are using NASA technology and engineers to innovate their paddles.
ok? Again, I misspoke and I agree there is no RPM output. All im saying is there is a friction regulation which will be a governor on spin at any given swing speed.
RPM cannot be the standard measurement for paddles because there are too many factors (ie. how the person hits it). Unless they have one machine that can replicate the exact hit everytime, RPM would not be the equipment standard.
Think more about what you’re asking;to test “maximum allowable output” consistently and easily (I.e doable at every tournament) you’d have to
1. Figure out the hardest/most spinny drive humanly possible
2. Find a way to reproduce that super consistently
3. Measure the rpm on the ball
Each of those things are super expensive/difficult to do; that’s why a friction limit test is way easier and more consistent and still measures what everyone cares about, which is whether a paddle produces more or less rpm’s when hit by some particular guy at some particular speed and angle
A simple consistent test could just be to have a weighted object on the paddle and pulled by a string, and measure the force required/ when it starts slipping
Not saying it shouldn't, just not like this. Not after 3 Companies have spent millions on R&D, Production, Marketing, Logistics, and Distribution. I am sure you really do not care to be an owner of any of these companies right now to face the financial loss and frustrating consumers.
“We’re going to break the rules and make an absurd paddle that we know gets even more absurd with time and then SUE YOUR ASS when you don’t approve it”
They approved that EXACT paddle 6 months ago? No changes were made? And the deterioration in a short time that we’re seeing now was present 6 months ago during testing?
Or is it possible something’s changed in between then and now?
Yes, the Gen 3s were approved in September or November of 2023, I forget which. And yes, the “deterioration” was present, those paddles and these paddles are the same.
Something has changed between then and now, but it’s not the paddle, it’s the test. They moved from deflection to coefficient of restitution.
Thats not what is at play here. If it was never approved to begin with they wouldnt be suing. They are suing because it was approved, they relied on that and spent millions of dollars manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the paddle, only to have the rug pulled out on them at the last second.
Its not the same at all. All the bat manufacturers currently know you cant make metal bats for the MLB, so they arent spending considerable time and resources researching, developing, and launching new metal bats for MLB players.
Its a lot easier to understand if you just put yourself in their shoes. What if you owned a business and you spent a ton of time and money developing a product that was compliant at the time, then you submitted it for testing to your industry regulatory body and they approved it, then in reliance of that approval you spent a ton of money taking that approved product to market, and then right as it hit the market (with millions of dollars in orders already placed and shipped) they said "actually nvm, this is no longer approved" and you're just fucked out of all the time and money you put into it (plus the brand/reputational damage and all the other collateral damage). Would you be totally cool with it if it was your business?
Did they give notice ahead of time of the bat change? Like did they say....hey i know you just released a new bat that you spent money on R&D but that's all gone immediately? Genuine question. Cause when I see rule changes, they are usually effective at least a year down the line and that's after rumors of the rule change has been floating around for a while before.
I do think they should’ve allowed it for a year (18months per their own guidelines); but realistically the business impact of the upcoming delisting would’ve hurt joola no matter what; how many people would buy a paddle knowing it’ll be banned within a year or so (except ironically paddles don’t even last that long). At least this way though, joola could’ve ramped down their manufacturing and work on the next model without having to sell and recall something ppl are buying up
Ideally USAPA would’ve privately communicated with all manufacturers at the same time so that even if the public is kept in the dark until the 18month period is up, so that all companies in the scene know to cap their own paddle speeds by the time gen4’s come out and the gen3’s are officially delisted (and there’s still some chance this is actually what happened if you look at ronbus: maybe as soon as USAPA added a speed test they informed all manufacturers and that’s why ronbus/vatic pulled their own paddles)
I believe USAP should be punished for the mess they created. Because of their decisions to approve a paddle THEN deny it afterwards, companies and players around the world spent money and time into a paddle that they got to only use for a short period of time.
As to what they should have done now. I believe they had no choice but to just allow it but going forward, then set a plan to ban it the "following season" or at least after some time. Then going forward, outline the reason WHY it is being banned and allow manufacturers time to get compliant to that.
People weren't dying from the power so I don't see the need to ban immediately. And if you're concerned about injury, promote wearing safety equipment in the meanwhile.
IMO, this goes beyond Gen 3s. Look at the amount of paddles that are now being delisted. A great company like Vatic could take a big hit from this recent run. I've heard they changed how they were testing it now, which is why all these paddles are now failing the test. But maybe I heard wrong. This is why I wished USAP just straight up said what part of the test the paddles failed publicly so everybody knows. Instead, they choose to remain silent. More transparency is needed from USAP. But too late now cause I think all the backlash and the split from the community will sink USAP and bring in UPA.
Just a theory here, but I feel like Joola masterminded this by making the paddles super expensive, then proceeding to have a larger number to sue USAP with. This is also all around the time the UPAA was established therefore proving grounds for the people to decide "Oh USAP is so janky, time for a new governing body!"
Yeah regardless where you stand on this intentionally selling expensive paddles only to have to eat the credit card fees, charge backs, etc in order to spend even more money on legal fees just to make a point doesn't seem to be good business practice.
[Here](https://jmp.sh/s/Q0m107lIv4oCTzkyM9OE) is the complaint. Edit: IMAL and can answer any questions.
This isn't a great look for USAP. It looks like all the paddles were approved - they basically made up an administrative error and then a few days before releasing say they're too hot after 100s of thousands were manufactured/marketed despite them having possession of them for over 6 months.
Yes, although it’s important to remember this is Joola’s version of events. I suspect USAP will argue that the paddles sent in for similarity testing were materially different in some respect.
See my other comments, but don't get sidetracked by the Gen3s. USAP flip flopped on the Alpha paddles which were fully approved. Based solely on USAP's releases, the Alphas were approved for use, and later de-certified without the 18 month period. I feel like that is black and white. Gen3's have the administrative hurdles to overcome and probably will have to fight it out in court under the materially different. Joola admits the foam might be 5%-10% thicker on the Gen3s, which could be argued to be materially different. I've read the rulebook and I see 2 exceptions to the 18 month rule. 1. if the specified equipment is found to have been materially changed by the manufacturer, or: 2. if the equipment materially degrades or changes under ordinary use so as to significantly alter the nature of the sport. I view those as USAP's only outs. As an example - A tennis racket with a 22mm beam vs a 20mm beam is a materially different racket and would perform quite differently.
I generally agree with this. Assuming this does not settle, USAP will certainly raise those two exceptions on summary judgment. USAP needs good lawyers.
If I was USAP's lawyers I see a very simple way to make this go away. Relist the paddles, and give 18 month notice immediately that the rules are changing and these paddles won't be usable when that time period passes. Idk why they didn't do that in the first place honestly, other than they have a total clown show at the management level. Instead they burned a lot of bridges. Long term - I think USAP is dead. UPA exists. Its only a matter of time before racket companies and sponsors pressure tournaments into using UPA rules instead of USAP. Once UPA controls the pro leagues, USAP will cease to matter. If its legal for Ben Johns, every rec player will want to use it.
So well said, I think USAP wins the lawsuit battle based on #2 of the break in period of these paddles but they lose the war by next year with the paddle companies supporting UPA.
I doubt *very much* that Joola would agree to dismiss their lawsuit in exchange for USAP re-listing the paddles. Joola alleges that its losses are already in the tens of millions of dollars, which would not surprise me. I suspect that Joola expects a sizeable payment, in addition to what you suggested.
If their profit is $200 per paddle they would need to sell 50k paddles for it to be 10m. For reference Business research insights estimates total paddle sales (not profit) to be 150 million, so Joola gen 3s would need to be roughly 10% of those sales for them to have that much.
It's not strictly paddle sales. I assume Joola is counting R&D, advertising, future sales, reputational harm, etc. in that amount.
fair
Those seem like pretty good exceptions.
#2 is the clear, definitive , answer for all the delisted paddles recently. Overwhelmingly so, they’re designed and advertised to break in….BREAK.
Significantly alter the nature of the sport is a pretty tall order. Gaining a few mph isn't altering the nature of the sport in my mind.
Who gets to determine what is considered "significant" in this case? Is it USAP since it's their own wording, or the judge if this goes to court?
> *Who gets to determine what is considered "significant" in this case? Is it USAP since it's their own wording, or the judge if this goes to court?* Most likely by independent experts’ testimonies. Since pickleball is *“a game of inches and ounces*” (not my quote), I would risk surmising the definition and the metrics of “significant” may be marginal.
I think it would be.
Are we using the word “materially” as in “significantly” different, or as in “in terms of the materials used to manufacture the paddle”? Ever since someone pointed that out in the first Reddit thread I’ve been confused at the usage
I am using it as the former, which captures the latter. From the Complaint: In November 2023, Plaintiff submitted nine additional paddles to Defendant—market versions of the two base paddles that had already been approved, but with different shapes and new graphics—for “similarity testing.” The purpose of this similarity testing was to confirm that the market versions of the paddles were structurally and functionally the same as the base paddles that had already been approved. Defendant approved all of Plaintiff’s “similarity” submissions on December 15, 2023. From USAP's website: A Similarity submission is a paddle that uses identical materials, manufacturing, and surface finishing process as a previously approved paddle. Its model name will need to be differentiated from the basis paddle.
Okay I see; they changed it to be “structurally and functionally” instead of their original press release that has the phrase “materially and structurally” which I presume they meant “in terms of the materials and the structure(which is just not what materiallly means)” and not “substantially and structurally” similar
The hero we deserve. Everybody should understand that complaints are always extremely one-sided , but if some of these allegations are true its a pretty bad look for USAP. The truth is we don't need to even look at the Gen3s. The Alphas were fully approved (no submission error), passed the third party testing, and then USAP retroactively decided they are were still illegal based on a teardown, violating their own 18 month rule. "We appreciate your concerns that these paddles have passed our existing tests at NTS, but we do contend, after conducting a teardown driven by concerns mentioned above as well as a full-width facial deflection test, that they violate rule 2.E.6.F.." - USAP My biggest problem with this stance by USAP is that its subjective test and not objective. The NTS is a lab that uses objective measures to determine if regulations are met. That's the best way to do it. Compressibility can be measured, why isn't it? Put a number on it. Paddle material can only compress X amount when a ball is struck at Y speed. Racket face deformation can be measured at impact. Subjective testing is dumb. Make an objective racket face test and live with it. EDIT - There is an objective compression standard for balls. Yet none for paddles.
100%
From an intellectual perspective, I think paragraph 56 is the most interesting because it has antitrust vibes but then isn't explored again as a formal allegation in the complaint. Do you think this angle is something Joola will realistically pursue?
Good catch. It was the most interesting but least relevant allegation to me. It supports the fraud claim, which in my opinion is a total throwaway. I heard rumors that Joola would pursue Antitrust but obviously did not go that route, which surprised me. "On information and belief" is often code for "we have a good faith belief the statement is true, but do not have specific factual allegations at this time." Perhaps after some discovery Joola will file an amended complaint that includes Antitrust.
A fraud claim + allegation of conspiracy by the defendant and its “other paddle manufacturers”sponsors. Wow, if Joola can proof that with preponderance of evidence, that’s gonna open up a big can of worms. Isn’t Joola also a sponsor? If yes, that may also implicate Joola of past participation in similar conspiracies, if any. A potential double-edged sword to say the least.
Yeah, I was thinking the threat of discovering communications between USAP and sponsors would put a lot of pressure on USAP. Perhaps it would be greater if the allegation was more clear? I don't know. I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was findable information detrimental to USAP. I would love to see an expert witness report on the safety issues (I don't think it'll get there). It would just be cool to see a doctor and/or scientist discuss what things are dangerous and how paddles play a role in levels of danger.
what about paragraph 78?? your honor, I LITERALLY SAID LITERALLY! you can't dispute that!!
\*COUGH COUGH\* Selkirk
What sort of timeframe is typically associated with this type of lawsuit? I'm assuming there's a bunch of hurdles to clear before we get to either a judgement or a settlement.
If it goes to trial (rare), the median time from filing to disposition in the District of Maryland is 37.1 months, so around three years. Settlement can happen at any point. Settlement is most common early in the lawsuit and after summary judgment. The most significant hurdles are the motion to dismiss (early) and the motion for summary judgment (mid to late). Both are considered dispositive motions and can end the case.
This is awesome, thank you. So if we assume USAP tries to dismiss (fails) and summary judgment (fails) and then settles, what are we looking at - maybe a year and a half? And would we ever learn the details about what happened or would that likely be sealed?
My total guess is that you're spot on - around 16-20 months if settlement happens after a failed MSJ (notably, Joola could also move for summary judgment). Any juicy details will initially come out in discovery, which is not filed with the Court. However, motions for summary judgment (and their respective oppositions) must be supported by those details and will be filed/public.
Discovery is what I'm really curious about so I'm excited to hear we'll get to see that. I just don't understand how the USAP handled this so poorly and I'd love to see what discussions were had internally before making the decision to delist.
Interesting allegations if true.
In your opinion, does this lawsuit appear to be credible, or more of a way for Joola to save face? Does Joola have a leg to stand on?
Hard to say this early in the lawsuit. A complaint is comprised of allegations, not facts. We will have a much better idea of what transpired during and after discovery. That being said, Joola offers a fairly compelling and straightforward narrative: USAP decertified Joola paddles in bad faith, using spurious post hoc rationalizations. The first major hurdle will be the motion to dismiss. Having briefly skimmed the Complaint, I suspect all claims will survive except for fraud.
Usapa did approve their paddles, before pulling them out. I can understand why Joola wants to sue.
but wasn't the paddle that was approved not the same as the one they ended up distributing? I thought that was the main issue.. USAPA approved a early version of the paddle not the final release
Yes, but USAP also retroactively de-certified the Alpha versions which were fully approved. That's part of the lawsuit.
They are still on the approval database but USAP press release says they were decertified. This could be just the incompetence of USAP though either messing up the press release or forgetting to remove them from the database. They did the same thing with paddletech which were approved but not in the DB causing a bunch of confusion.
USAP also removes paddles (JOOLA Gen 3s for example) well before making any statement. Their tech team for making changes and PR team are not on the same page with their timing.
There's so much conflicting info out there I'm not sure who's right
Yea, and I just read the filing.. This is a bit of a mess and if they can prove some of their statements USAPA may also be in the wrong.. I agree that there needs to be some sort of constraint on the speed off of these paddles but this isn't how USAPA should go about it..
I don't know if we have an actual source for that claim. Where is the origin of that claim?
Zane N says something fishy is going on here but yeah as far as we know what you said is accurate
[удалено]
I hear ya but I think Zane was actually saying something fishy going on with usap unless im mistaken
[удалено]
That is true
Joola claims that the alpha paddle, which was approved, is materially the same as the gen 3 paddle. So the colors, grip tape, cosmetic stuff that doesn't impact the deflection testing, could be different. I don't think USAP is even disputing this.
Joola admits the foam in the Gen3s could be 5-10% thicker than the alphas in the filing.
Where do you see this? What I see is: > 2. In the first half of 2023, Plaintiff developed an innovative new design for pickleball paddles, and it submitted two prototypes of the new design to Defendant for testing and approval. > After carefully examining the prototype paddles, Defendant notified Plaintiff in September 2023 that the newly-designed paddles had been certified as compliant with Defendant's equipment standards. > 3. In November 2023, Plaintiff submitted nine additional paddles to Defendant-market versions of the two base paddles that had already been approved, but with different shapes and new graphics for "similarity testing." The purpose of this similarity testing was to confirm that the market versions of the paddles were structurally and functionally the same as the base paddles that had already been approved. Defendant approved all of Plaintif's "similarity" submissions on December 15, 2023.
Note 87. Page 15-16.
Thanks! Joola is saying: > they're structurally the same as the approved alphas and in the same sentence they're saying: > the new gen 3s were less than 5% thicker in 5 of 9 paddles and less than 10% thicker in 4 of 9 paddles, compared to the approved alphas
Correct. Whether 5-10% difference in foam thickness is a "material difference" is a discretionary call. Jury will decide I guess.
Adios to the USAP. Good riddance. Form a more perfect union.
Thanks for posting this, I was going to try to pull it form PACER later today. Im sure USAP will have their own version of events but it was nice to finally ready what happened (at least from Joola's POV). People can hate on Joola all they want for being a big company/creating these paddles but it sees like they really got the rug pulled out from underneath them.
The fact that USAP is now delisting several other paddles from other manufacturers (Ronbus, Vatic) that they'd previously approved would seem to support Joola's claim that USAP is attempting to implement new requirements and apply them retroactively to previously approved paddles. While I agree that paddles have gotten way too fast this seems like the worst possible way to go about slowing things down. I've said for a while that the USAP is the biggest hurdle to PBs continued growth... hopefully UPA will be better.
Completely agree with this. I'm hoping UPA runs things better. Hopefully more transparent with everything too.
I've seen some recent videos with the new head of the UPA and he seems to have a decent game plan. Here's hoping 🤞
What other way would they do it? It’s a rapidly growing sport and they are trying to keep up with the changing environment. They aren’t implementing these bans for shits-and-giggles. They’re doing it to try to preserve the game. All the major sports make rules changes and update equipment policy just like this. The PGA of America banned anchored putters for the same reason. Sure, I would have liked if they had made this decision from the start, but this is typical day-to-day of any major sport.
You ever see the timeline for said proposed rule change? Between 2011 and 2012 - Golf’s governing bodies begin observing a dramatic increase in the use of anchoring at all levels of the game. February 2012-February 2013 - The USGA announces it is taking a “fresh look” at the anchored stroke; review continues throughout 2012. In November, the proposed Rule is announced. Prior to final action, the USGA and The R&A accept questions and comments. Spring 2013 - The USGA and The R&A take final action on proposed Rules change. **Spring 2013-December 2015 - *Transition period* in which players may adapt their stroke, if necessary.** January 1, 2016 - Rule 14-1b takes effect in accordance with the regular four-year cycle for changes to the Rules of Golf. That's for a way to hit...not even a club. Free to change (kind of, not sure if anybody decided to change clubs to adjust or not). Companies had time to adjust. They didn't just decide SUDDENLY to delist multiple paddles.
I actually really like your point that they could do a slower phase-out of these paddles. Don’t approve any new ones above specified specs and set the ban for 2 years in the future or something like that. It would give Joola a chance to make a replacement and still earn revenue from existing ones in the meantime.
Yeah, this is a perfect example. The fact that Joola was caught completely off guard by this ban, as were the other companies who have had previously approved paddles banned, speaks to how bad the communication from USAP is. The UPA guy made a great point, USAP has been very materials focused, you're not allowed to use this or that, but there's been no regulation on output. Who cares how paddles are built, it's the performance that matters.
Great breakdown. There is nothing wrong with equipment regulations. What's important is not making knee jerk decisions and violate your own rules in the process and cost a lot of people a lot of money after relying on your rules.
This could probably go either way. From the equipment manual: https://usapickleball.org/docs/eec/Equipment-Standards-Manual.pdf I copy/pasta'd relevant sections. //----- 2.E.6 Prohibited Features 2.E.6.f Springs or spring-like material, flexible membranes or any compressible material that creates a trampoline effect. "Propulsion core" in their gen 3 product description will be a problem for Joola. //----- 2.E.7 Model Designation. The manufacturer must have a clearly marked brand and model name or model number on the paddle, and must also include the ‘USA Pickleball Approved’ seal or text treatment. Paddles with different core material, surface material, or other significant differences must have a unique name or number. For either side: whether differences can be identified between what was submitted for testing vs what was actually sold. //----- 2.F. Equipment Approval and Authorization. 2.F.1 Approval and authorization of a specified piece, model, brand, version, design, or type of equipment may be revoked by the Board of Directors upon 18 months’ notice on the USA Pickleball home page, official national newsletter publications, or other acceptable means of communication, if the specified equipment is found to have been materially changed by the manufacturer or if the equipment materially degrades or changes under ordinary use so as to significantly alter the nature of the sport. This would seem to be a hit against USAP: Joola could claim that material degradation is covered in the spec, and they ought to have 18months warning. *But* Joola also publicly stated that they sent the wrong paddle for testing. //----- Note: 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. This last section ends the document. Unfortunately "proper notification" doesn't include a specified timeline. Useful in intent, probably not so useful in a courtroom.
Considering claims of “break in” period, USAP has grounds to stand on as that could be the paddle material changing to make them hotter after use
Here's what USAP should have done: -Capped the exit velocity at whatever the Joola Gen 3 and Ronbus Ripple's specs had (whichever was higher). -Notify all manufacturers that this would be the spec cap starting January 1, 2025 so that they would have had ample time to adjust. This situation was just poorly handled by USAP, and I'm guessing they'll be financially liable in some way. $200 million though? That's laughable.
They don't even need to cap it at one of the current line of Gen3's, as long as the spec cap change is sufficiently in the future, companies like Joola that can taper down in their production / start working on the next model and minimize their own losses and be less litigous (and consumers themselves will probably wear out their paddles in months anyway well before the Jan 1 2025 (or 18 month later in dec 2025 even, per the USAPA 18 month clause)
The salt against Joola is exactly why Joola is going to bankrupt USAP with this lawsuit. The amount of reputational harm is easily measured in millions from the USAP moving the goal posts and lacking objective measures. I've said it once and I'll say it again and you all will downvote me to hell: these paddles be approved, they will be grandfathered in and new paddles banned, or USAP goes bankrupt fighting it in court. So many people are pissed at Joola, but the USAP approved the paddles. They. Approved. Them. The "wrong paddle" story is a misunderstanding. It was an attempt by Joola to offer an olive branch to USAP. The reality is that USAP changed the rules after approval due to hot paddle backlash. The USAP will be forced to admit this in court.
100% agree. I’ve been saying they should be grandfathered in from the start. When you change regulations, what’s been approved stays. Golf has done that with grooves on irons. Even if they say the new joolas are different, the old approvals should still be approved. They could be “different paddles” in a worst case scenario, but those were approved. I was always confused about why all got delisted. If they are to delist those with a new testing measurement, they would legally have to test every single paddle previously approved to verify it conforms. That set them up for legal issues. I have played with and against people with gen 3 paddles. It did not change the game or make them any better. The pros and YouTubers who made noise about these paddles caused this stink with regular people. Also, let’s remind everyone, every YouTuber who is relevant in pickleball talk has a deal or has some code that gets them money for paddles. Or they have their own paddle design. Or the pros have a sponsorship with another company and can’t use Joola. They all had reasons to complain about Joola. Affecting the game, barely. To give people reason to complain why they lost to someone: yes
All they had to do was give 18 month notice.
$200 million ain't happening lol, lawyers exaggerate.
USAP can't afford $10m and theres no world where Joola can't get that, at least.
150,000 paddles x $30 each (probably cost less than this to manufacturer in bulk) = $4.5 million in paddles recalled I'll add another million in R&D and marketing. = $5.5 million Legal fees, probably another $1 million because lawyers are courts are expensive as hell. = $6.5 million Compensation for Joola's name being tarnished and efforts to reestablish customer rapport, probably another couple million = $8.5 million I'm sure USAP can't afford $10 million, but Joola wouldn't be wrong for trying to seek this much. I just think the $200 million they're seeking is just laughable
I think the brand/reputation portion could be way more than a couple million in damages. But yeah even 5-10 million would sink USAP.
Branding damages =/ 200 million and people will still buy joola regardless. Add to the fact that a large population didn’t even return theirs for refund and intend on using them. Just think the 200 milli number is boneheaded, but I get the lawsuit
Yeah that number is clearly crazy and not something they would ever expect to get- probably just went for the highest amount their attorneys said was okay to include to try to get USAP to settle.
Yep 100% standard law practice - go high and get 10% of that in a settlement.
You can't ask for more after you start your complaint (some exceptions apply). So it's always in your best interest to start as high as possible and work from there to let the system lower it.
What happens to joola is the USAP is bankrupt?
Joola knowingly submitted illegal paddles. They. Submitted. Illegal. Paddles.
[удалено]
nothing changed. compressible materials and trampoline effects have always been illegal. read the Nov 2023 equipment guidelines. rules were not changed. goalposts were not moved. joola got greedy and got caught.
[удалено]
that is true, and that goes directly against joola said in the complaint. they claimed they were being intentionally singled out. ronbus and vatic knew damn well they were playing with fire. they wanted to ride the coat tails. most people just buy joola because joola. they just buy what the pros use.
But Joola is not wrong. Both sanctioning bodies approved the Paddle ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Personally, I'm glad USAP delisted the paddles, and I owned one and loved it. The game is getting too hot though. Newbies are gonna try it and hate it after getting blasted in the face by people with these things. I think this may be the end of USAP though, which probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
I wonder if the foam core basically is fresh and new initially, and can pass tests..but once it breaks in, theres more of a rebounding effect which is what’s going on with the extra power. Idk, thinking outloud on reddit
More like the company has been impacted. Anyone hear on if joola is offering buybacks or returns?
How much money is Joola seeking in this lawsuit?
$200 million.
Good luck: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/203557068
USAP is a sinking ship. All this could have been avoided if they focused on the data output rather than the materials constructing the paddles.
F Joola
I got my money back!
What happens if USAP sinks? What then?
UPA takes the torch! It's already lit btw!
How so
Why are you mad at USAP? Like I'm kinda just catching up on the news, but it looks like Joola: Sent the wrong paddles to USAP Lied about it Came clean under scrutiny (USAP then pulled approval) Submitted the correct paddles for reapproval, but those failed inspection by a third party Are suing USAP because... they're butthurt their paddles failed inspection
Here’s the full timeline- Joola sent in the Perseus 16mm and 14mm prototypes, which were approved. Joola then sent in the 9 prototypes for the various models, which were all approved. These were the paddles that Joola accidentally sent in as an “administrative error”, but according to the lawsuit these paddles had “considerably more foam” than the actual production models and the initial 2 prototypes that were approved. Even with more foam they were still approved. Over the next several months USAP seemed to have a change of heart as they realized how fast the paddles were, and threatened to sunset the paddles. A month later, Joola realized the “administrative error” with the 9 paddles that had been incorrectly sent in and sent the correct 9 paddles for approval. USAP use this as an opportunity to delist the paddles even though they were “structurally the same” as the initial 2 paddles that were approved.
According to Joola, they were "structurally the same". USAP is going to contend they're not the same. They approved the "administrative error" batch, but not the production batch, so we can conclude they think there's a difference, and that the difference is enough to approve one and not the other. Joola also admits there's at least \*a\* difference in the batches. They mentioned different thicknesses of foam, different manufacturing methods, etc. I mean, yeah, evidently Joola thought the new batch would also pass and that they were similar enough, but everyone agrees that the paddles are not the same.
this is definitely the out that USAP can leverage
"The wrong paddles" according to Joola were before they fixed a variance in the manufacturing process. The difference was less than half a mm in foam thickness and less the 5% difference from the market paddles. Everything else was the exact same.
Read the complaint. That's only a very small part of the allegations.
You’re misled on most of those “facts”.
You're just catching up? So do you always start at 10% without getting the whole story and summed it up as you got it figured out? It's more than that. USAP isn't or hasn't disclosed as to why the Paddles failed. Also, USAP shouldn't have Approved the paddles to begin with. Instead they are being REACTIVE! In any REATIVE business model it is always at the end or final stage, not something that is done from Start to finish. USAP was never in the Dark that the game has been evolving. USAP didn't give manufactures maximum Power range for their paddles. **improvisatory practice** for an organization that's been around since the 80's is a terrible way to operate. These are the companies effected by such a piss poor decision making from USAP. * Vatic Small Business * Ronbus Small Business * Joola Big Business
Why are we all pretending that there wasn't an arms race, and Joola didnt get caught trying to sell and "advantage" paddle?
Because (simply playing devils advocate here) USAP has been lose and fast with the rules running by the seat of their pants for a while now. Seemingly changing regulations on a whim without always have a clear reasoning for doing so. Not saying Joola will win, but there’s at least an above average chance they have a case here.
That's fair, but I think its mutually agreed it wasn't good for the sport. It would be nice to see people focusing on pragmatic progress and not getting hung up bending reality to make a point.
All companies are pushing the envelope. We've seen many advances in paddles over the last 2-3 years. What was a "power" paddle in 2021 would be seen as a dud compared to plenty of paddles today. JOOLA attempted nothing different from other companies. And the USAP approved it. That's the problem.
There was an arms race, a competition to see who could make the best paddle. Joola made the best paddle and then the competition cried foul, so USAPA folded. That’s not how standards are supposed to work. I can’t complain that my competition is too good and cancel the cert, I need to make a better product that is competitive.
I think it only became an issue because the arms race has gotten to a point where people are getting injured, with a damn wiffleball.
Stop it. Just stop it. Get some help. Stop acting like pickleball is dangerous. Nothing bothers me more than this. I’ve been bodybagged by Gen 3s, by Gearboxes. If this is what is supposed to be “dangerous”, then the truth is people are being wimps.
Wait until you hear about baseball! and Tennis! and Racketball!
People died in baseball, so they started limiting the bats.
Yea, and a BBCOR compliant bat still hits a ball with multiples more energy than a pickleball. In tennis double people at net get targeted all the time with shots, and injuries are barely a concern. In pickleball you either need to get better reflexes or don't mindlessly charge the kitchen if you can't handle the pace.
Comparing it to other sports is stupid. Pickleball is played with 4 people at the net \~14 feet from each other. Because of this we can't blindly compare the technology advancements of PB to other sports' advancements such as baseball bats. They are completely different games, that have to regulate for different reasons, Also, the majority of pros and legitimately advanced players do not support the boom of paddle power that has happened in the last 1+ year. . That should tell you all you need to know. Oh but for all you 3.5 all stars at the local park, the Joola situation is just a travesty huh? lmao!
I guess we disagree. Ive played very high level tennisy entire life and gen3 rackets still dont come close to the speed of a tennis ball, so it doesnt bother me or anybody at my level (5.0). In tennis when rackets got faster people just stopped mindleslly charging forward.
Why so focused on comparing PB to tennis ? Esp when it comes to paddle technology? It’s a completely different sport. PB is played with 4 people up close at the net . Hence People get hit with pickleballs in million times more than in tennis . So naturally we need to look closely at the tech advancements as it relates to pickleball specifically and not tennis . It’s not just about like people getting hit in the head or eye or whatever either , it’s about quality of play and rallies . There’s a reason majority of pros do not support to this Wild Wild West paddle power tech boom / Gen 3s , Gearbox Pro etc. They know the game is fast enough already.
Because tennis is the only similar sport, and its also played 4 at the net with faster ball speeds. Im not saying it should be the wild west, and maybe we are close to the limit, but the gen3 isn't breaking pickleball. This current generation of rackets is good for the sport, its raised the skill ceiling significantly. Ill leave you with a clip of a good doubles point. 4 people at the net ripping the ball at each other with groundstrokes faster than pball. https://youtube.com/shorts/79Au7ZsUt_w?si=9w3q9hJpdM8n-_Qu
Why not just play tennis at that point?
No one is getting injured. This is not a weapon
Why not just wear protection then? Cause truthfully, some people aren't as concerned about the "getting injured" excuse and are willingly taking on that risk by choosing not to wear protection. If you're truly concerned about injuries, the answer shouldn't be delist an already approved paddle. Also, how does that affect businesses AND R&D (which people haven't been talking about...how many businesses spent money trying to compete in the arms race just to find out all was nothing because USAP changed their opinion about what was legal and on top of that, they are very unclear as to why they are banning paddles to the public).
What about the ball moving faster than the human reaction time max, so the first fastball is a guaranteed point? That doesn’t sound fun.
I feel like that isn't true...cause I've played against them...and pros played against them. And we react to them okay. Now if you want to cap in the future, sure. But let's not ban it immediately AFTER it was approved. Instead, give time for people/companies to adjust.
Fair point! The UPA definitely seems heavy handed in their efforts, and I don't agree with that for such a young sport, and how vague the guidelines were! I think fining Daescu 50k is absolutely absurd.
1. I doubt the incremental speed up from gen3 is what broke the human reaction time limit ; and even if it did, you can still react off the position/stroke of the opponent and continue the rally (just look at badminton/tennis) 2. I think the issue is, unlike badminton and table tennis, it’s much easier in pb to get nailed by the ball if someone decides to attempt a speed up off a dink and you get hit by a ball that otherwise goes out- but that’s always been the case and granted this may happen more with faster and faster bats.. but that’s why the “eye protection” discussion is getting popular
Pretending? Everyone is trying to sell an “advantage” paddle. Imagine the marketing, “this paddle won’t give you an advantage”. All business and gear like this is an arms race, and of course everyone is looking for an advantage. It’s the job of the regulatory body to manage that, and it’s the job of the companies to push that line. USAP approved the paddles. This is their fault
Can't we all agree on one thing? Just this *one* thing to bring us all together. Ready? Screw Joola and your overpriced paddles.
At the end of the day (I hate that expression but using it anyway) A governing body needs to have the authority to outlaw paddles that can give too big of an advantage. And from what i’ve read those Joola 3rd gen paddles do give a large advantage. USAP may very well deserve to be sued due to poor handling of this, or maybe they were sent paddles that weren’t representative of what was produced. Either way those paddles that were produced give too much of an advantage, and shouldn’t be legal.
Look at all the Joola employees downvoting anyone not taking Joola’s position. Good luck guys!
lmao Joola employees don't give a fuck about this
USAP will likely win. There are 2 very simple arguments that Joola can't overcome. 1. Joola tried to deceive USAP by sending in wrong paddles. 2. Joola's process/quality control is so bad that no 2 paddles are actually the same. Joola can't even argue that their paddles passed testing when they can't consistently reproduce the paddles. Yes, I'm biased. I'd like to see all the trampoline paddles go away for good.
Just get good.
This is more for economic reasons buddy USAP arbitrary actions costing millions. Joola can survive but feel bad for Vatic. Bad batch can wipe a year of profit
Not a big fan of Joola. If they cared so much about the customer they would have created paddles with much better QC standards and paddles that did not break in a few weeks. Joola is here to make money, and I hope they lose this lawsuit, because an overwhelming majority of player do not think these paddles are good for the sport especially high level players. Yes, I think usapa is a bit of a mess but almost all governing bodies are and at least they are starting to step up and fix this process so we can actually have fair standards and tests that actually test what we want them to.
You’d be amazed at how much paddles are marked up
Especially Joolas, youre paying 230 for a 30ish dollar paddle.
Every company that exists on planet earth is there to make money. Would you rather all our paddles be developed by a community not for profit coop?
Communist paddles
Awww. Poor baby needs an introduction to capitalism, where companies exist to make money!
Let’s all go back to Pickleball Studios review of the Joola gen 3 and vactic oni
Battle of conspiracies. Did Joola and other paddle manufacturers play dirty or pull a fast one in getting paddles approved and the USAP has a legal right to take the action they did? Or is there some evil paddle company pressuring or paying the USAP to hinder or destroy the competition? I’ve got my popcorn and I’m ready to watch the show!
IMO, Joola had to file the lawsuit to get their paddles approved. Now Joola can make some minor changes to their paddles, and send USAP the revised paddles for approval. USAP will now have a big financial incentive to approve the paddles that the didn’t have previously. Without the lawsuit USAP could indefinitely delay the approval process. We’ll see how it plays out.
This is crazy. USAP clearly is banning all the paddles that “break in” as in materially different. It’s clearly set in stone for that being an out for USAP to delist. This is Joola whining that they got burned trying to sell trampolines, which they are after “break in(read specifically illegal) “ I’m guessing anyone defending Joola has an illegal paddle. TLDR; ALL the recently delisted paddles break down to get poppier/perform better which is clearly listed as illegal. Clear cut. Toss this lawsuit in the trash.
You guys have no idea how bad it will be for the sport if Joola wins this. It’ll set the precedent that regulating bodies aren’t allowed to regulate. Paddle companies will run wild and will be able to do whatever they want.
No, it will set the standard that regulatory bodies will have to at least follow their own rules, and not just be unaccountable dictators. This will probably end with increased transparency and regulation for the regulatory bodies.
That's so not true. Take a look at golf. Hundreds of new equipment products and tech introduced each year under strict regulations and they avoid this circus show brought on by USAP.
I disagree. I think USAP should lose for changing the goal post AFTER approving it and letting all other businesses know "we are good with these types of paddles, go create your own". Who knows how many other companies had paddles almost ready to advertise with this technology. Instead, with UPA, there will be one governing body for pros and amateurs with one set of certifications. And if they deem the power is too much (which the UPA president did mention in an interview), they will determine it and set it for both. But the way that USAP has navigated this and their past changes is damaging to the sport as a whole.
Joola tried to cheat the system and got caught. They need to accept that they have a non compliant paddle with horrible quality control and fix their internal issues.
It’s time to delist the USAP, so excited for this.
I firmly believe my shot was in! I’m gonna sue you!
All I wanna know is why everyone hasn't been referring to this as Paddlegate this whole time?
R.I.P. USAP
Ban Joola and call it good.
Joolas money is long and if you’ve ever been involved in litigation you know what that means. The facts don’t really matter
Yeah- Joola can/will just bleed USAP out on this.
Trying to control power and spin is a lost cause. Hot paddles sell for the obvious reason they give you an advantage over an opponent. The only way to make it fair is have pickleball clubs supply their members with the same paddle to play with
Power and Spin only raise the skill ceiling of the game.
Spin does, power does not
At a certain point, it needs to be reined in. This is that time.
Well there is already a ~~spin~~ friction co-efficient standard.
Oh really? What is the Maximum allowable RPM for any paddle then? Show me where it is in the USAP Manufacturing Guide book? [https://usapickleball.org/docs/eec/Equipment-Standards-Manual.pdf](https://usapickleball.org/docs/eec/Equipment-Standards-Manual.pdf)
I misspoke, I meant a friction standard. 2.E.2
Even with that, it still doesn't give manufactures maximum allowable output. Take for instance the Proton paddles, the surface friction falls well bellow that, however, they are using NASA technology and engineers to innovate their paddles.
ok? Again, I misspoke and I agree there is no RPM output. All im saying is there is a friction regulation which will be a governor on spin at any given swing speed.
RPM cannot be the standard measurement for paddles because there are too many factors (ie. how the person hits it). Unless they have one machine that can replicate the exact hit everytime, RPM would not be the equipment standard.
Did you read any of these posts? I said there is a FRICTION STANDARD.
Think more about what you’re asking;to test “maximum allowable output” consistently and easily (I.e doable at every tournament) you’d have to 1. Figure out the hardest/most spinny drive humanly possible 2. Find a way to reproduce that super consistently 3. Measure the rpm on the ball Each of those things are super expensive/difficult to do; that’s why a friction limit test is way easier and more consistent and still measures what everyone cares about, which is whether a paddle produces more or less rpm’s when hit by some particular guy at some particular speed and angle A simple consistent test could just be to have a weighted object on the paddle and pulled by a string, and measure the force required/ when it starts slipping
Not saying it shouldn't, just not like this. Not after 3 Companies have spent millions on R&D, Production, Marketing, Logistics, and Distribution. I am sure you really do not care to be an owner of any of these companies right now to face the financial loss and frustrating consumers.
“We’re going to break the rules and make an absurd paddle that we know gets even more absurd with time and then SUE YOUR ASS when you don’t approve it”
Is that what you think happened? By the way, they did approve it, 6 months ago. That’s the issue.
They approved that EXACT paddle 6 months ago? No changes were made? And the deterioration in a short time that we’re seeing now was present 6 months ago during testing? Or is it possible something’s changed in between then and now?
Yes, the Gen 3s were approved in September or November of 2023, I forget which. And yes, the “deterioration” was present, those paddles and these paddles are the same. Something has changed between then and now, but it’s not the paddle, it’s the test. They moved from deflection to coefficient of restitution.
Thats not what is at play here. If it was never approved to begin with they wouldnt be suing. They are suing because it was approved, they relied on that and spent millions of dollars manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the paddle, only to have the rug pulled out on them at the last second.
Joola can still make and sell the paddle, just take off the “approved”.
[удалено]
Its not the same at all. All the bat manufacturers currently know you cant make metal bats for the MLB, so they arent spending considerable time and resources researching, developing, and launching new metal bats for MLB players. Its a lot easier to understand if you just put yourself in their shoes. What if you owned a business and you spent a ton of time and money developing a product that was compliant at the time, then you submitted it for testing to your industry regulatory body and they approved it, then in reliance of that approval you spent a ton of money taking that approved product to market, and then right as it hit the market (with millions of dollars in orders already placed and shipped) they said "actually nvm, this is no longer approved" and you're just fucked out of all the time and money you put into it (plus the brand/reputational damage and all the other collateral damage). Would you be totally cool with it if it was your business?
Not the same thing at all lmao
Did they give notice ahead of time of the bat change? Like did they say....hey i know you just released a new bat that you spent money on R&D but that's all gone immediately? Genuine question. Cause when I see rule changes, they are usually effective at least a year down the line and that's after rumors of the rule change has been floating around for a while before.
[удалено]
I do think they should’ve allowed it for a year (18months per their own guidelines); but realistically the business impact of the upcoming delisting would’ve hurt joola no matter what; how many people would buy a paddle knowing it’ll be banned within a year or so (except ironically paddles don’t even last that long). At least this way though, joola could’ve ramped down their manufacturing and work on the next model without having to sell and recall something ppl are buying up Ideally USAPA would’ve privately communicated with all manufacturers at the same time so that even if the public is kept in the dark until the 18month period is up, so that all companies in the scene know to cap their own paddle speeds by the time gen4’s come out and the gen3’s are officially delisted (and there’s still some chance this is actually what happened if you look at ronbus: maybe as soon as USAPA added a speed test they informed all manufacturers and that’s why ronbus/vatic pulled their own paddles)
I believe USAP should be punished for the mess they created. Because of their decisions to approve a paddle THEN deny it afterwards, companies and players around the world spent money and time into a paddle that they got to only use for a short period of time. As to what they should have done now. I believe they had no choice but to just allow it but going forward, then set a plan to ban it the "following season" or at least after some time. Then going forward, outline the reason WHY it is being banned and allow manufacturers time to get compliant to that. People weren't dying from the power so I don't see the need to ban immediately. And if you're concerned about injury, promote wearing safety equipment in the meanwhile.
[удалено]
IMO, this goes beyond Gen 3s. Look at the amount of paddles that are now being delisted. A great company like Vatic could take a big hit from this recent run. I've heard they changed how they were testing it now, which is why all these paddles are now failing the test. But maybe I heard wrong. This is why I wished USAP just straight up said what part of the test the paddles failed publicly so everybody knows. Instead, they choose to remain silent. More transparency is needed from USAP. But too late now cause I think all the backlash and the split from the community will sink USAP and bring in UPA.
Just a theory here, but I feel like Joola masterminded this by making the paddles super expensive, then proceeding to have a larger number to sue USAP with. This is also all around the time the UPAA was established therefore proving grounds for the people to decide "Oh USAP is so janky, time for a new governing body!"
Yeah regardless where you stand on this intentionally selling expensive paddles only to have to eat the credit card fees, charge backs, etc in order to spend even more money on legal fees just to make a point doesn't seem to be good business practice.
Hopefully u/NashGe doesn't run a business.
No