Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Golf ball manufacturer's lawsuit avoids bunker, (Aug 5, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Competitor golf ball manufacturer allegedly characterized plaintiff's products as "mud balls," which is "one of the most derogatory phrases that can be attributed to a golf ball."

A federal district court judge in San Diego, California has denied dismissal of a lawsuit brought by one golf ball manufacturer against another. The lawsuit alleged false advertising and unfair competition based upon disparagement of the plaintiff's products in a marketing campaign directed to sporting goods retailers, and ultimately, to individual golfers. Alleged false statements about the performance of the competitor’s balls were not puffery and constituted actionable false statements and they were commercial advertising or promotion which was introduced into interstate commerce (Taylormade Golf Company, Inc. v. Topgolf Callaway Brands Corp., No. 3:26-cv-00250-GPC-BJW (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2026)).

Background. TaylorMade Golf Co., Inc. (TaylorMade) and TopGolf Callaway Brands Corp. (Callaway) are golf ball manufacturers located less than one kilometer from one another in Carlsbad, California. TaylorMade sued Callaway, alleging that Callaway is perpetuating "a coordinated marketing campaign to mislead consumers and retailers to believe that Callaway's golf balls have superior overall quality and performance" over TaylorMade's golf balls. The alleged marketing campaign entailed (1) showing a demonstration in which golf balls are illuminated with ultraviolet light to purportedly measure their quality and performance; (2) disparaging TaylorMade golf balls in derogatory golfer jargon; and (3) claims that TaylorMade has inferior quality control in the manufacture of its golf balls.

TaylorMade's complaint alleges false advertising under the Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)] and California's False Advertising Law (FAL) [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.], and unfair competition under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.].

Callaway moved to dismiss the complaint.

Lanham Act. The judge denied Callaway's motion to dismiss TaylorMade's Lanham Act claims. Callaway's alleged statement regarding TaylorMade's product's performance being negatively affected by the "uneven paint coating on the ball" is a specific claim that can be measured, and accordingly, does not constitute mere sales puffery. Other specific and measurable claims regarding the ultraviolet light demonstration and TaylorMade's quality control were also susceptible to measurement and evaluation, not puffery.

Having found that such alleged statements were not puffery, the court found that TaylorMade had alleged facts which, if borne out, would refute Callaway's alleged assertions. These include the validity of the ultraviolet light demonstration and the actualities of TaylorMade's quality control practices and procedures. Callaway's statements were therefore actionable false statements that might be proven at trial.

Moreover, Callaway's statements and representations were made at so-called "Preline meetings" between manufacturers of golf balls and/or other equipment and wholesale buyers from retailers such as golf specialty shops and sporting goods stores, "for the purpose of pitching sales of products for the upcoming season, and showing how to market these products to consumers." Under such circumstances, any information or misinformation given is highly likely to widely propagate down to individual golf player consumer. This fulfills the interstate commerce requisite for a Lanham Act claim.

Lacking Ninth Circuit precedent, the court here has already applied the enhanced pleading requirements for fraud [Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)] to Lanham Act claims. Some of the specific instances in which the allegedly false statements occurred were alleged by TaylorMade "on information and belief." This information was in the hands of Callaway, the opposing party, the Rule 9(b) requirement was therefore relaxed because TaylorMade had laid down an adequate foundation upon which to base its information and belief; specifically, an actual video to which the unknown ones were similar.

The California Statutes. The court denied dismissal of TaylorMade's claims under California's FAL and UCL. TaylorMade had standing to sue under those statutes; its efforts to counter the losses of its sales from Callaway's marketing campaign sufficed for the lost money or property requisite. Furthermore, the court's own precedent does not require a non-consumer plaintiff to allege its own reliance upon the false advertising if it can show "sufficient causal connection between the competitor defendant's fraudulent business practices and the competitor plaintiff's injury." Here, TaylorMade has alleged multiple inquiries from consumers who had expressed concerns stemming from Callaway's alleged misstatements.

For similar reasons as discussed in connection with the Lanham Act, Callaway's alleged campaign entailed actionable false statements for purposes of the FAL and CAL.

Although TaylorMade seeks injunctive relief under the Lanham Act, it has emphasized that it seeks only monetary relief, and not injunctive relief, under FAL and CAL. The court therefore denied Callaway's dismissal motion which was based upon injunctive relief under those California statutes.

The Case is No. 3:26-cv-00250-GPC-BJW.

Judge: Curiel, G.

Attorneys: Joshua Schwartzman (DLA Piper LLP) for Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc. Brittany L. Scheinok (Morrison & Foerster LLP) for Topgolf Callaway Brands Corp.

Companies: Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc.; Topgolf Callaway Brands Corp.

MainStory: TopStory Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews