TaylorMade Sues Callaway Over ‘Deceptive’ Golf Ball Pitch

Legal battles between golf equipment manufacturers are nothing new, but the root of the latest clash between two golf industry heavyweights may be: golf ball ink.

In a lawsuit filed this month, TaylorMade alleged that Callaway has engaged in a “coordinated marketing campaign to deceive consumers and retailers … based on nothing more than how the balls appear under a ‘UV’ ultraviolet light.”

The lawsuit, filed in the Southern California District of San Diego — near the headquarters of both companies — details actions allegedly taken by a Callaway sales agent who, during a marketing campaign, illuminated balls from both companies under UV light and claimed dark spots on the TaylorMade ball indicated imperfections or deficiencies.

The lawsuit, which was reported for the first time BY Sports Front Officeincludes a screenshot of the course (below) and a partial transcript of an exchange between a sales agent and a customer, during which the agent suggests that paint coating differences on golf balls may affect clay-like performance on the putt.

TaylorMade alleges that other Callaway sales representatives “made misleading sales pitches that overemphasized the importance of UV light in coating coverage and golf ball performance” and referred to TaylorMade balls as “clay balls” during these demonstrations. TaylorMade said in the lawsuit that the difference in appearance under UV light can be attributed to UV illuminator — a “cosmetic additive” to the paint coating that “has no meaningful relationship to ball flight, distance, playability or other performance attributes.”

TaylorMade alleges that Callaway instructed more than just sales agents to perform this exercise, stating that the misleading representations of TaylorMade balls were made by Callaway staff, ambassadors and influencers with ties to the manufacturer. The lawsuit cited an article from a golf equipment website as an example of Callaway’s attempt to “unfairly market” its balls against TaylorMade’s.

In the filing, TaylorMade objects to uncontrolled UV light testing, noting several different reasons — such as sun exposure — that the test could produce mixed results.

A TaylorMade representative provided a statement to GOLF.com that read in part: “While TaylorMade respects Callaway and their golf products, we are disappointed with Callaway’s attempt to unfairly compete with TaylorMade.

“TaylorMade began this lawsuit to protect its brand and reputation. We intend to refute the claims made about our products and hold Callaway accountable through the courts for disparaging not only our brand and products, but just as importantly, misleading consumers.”

Callaway issued this statement: “While we generally do not comment on pending litigation, we continue to stand by the importance of UV light observations regarding the application of coating materials to golf balls and believe this is important information for the market.”

Ball manufacturers make great efforts to perfect their production processesand decisions about paint coating – or internal weight – I DO issue, in the same way that dimple arrangements or the number of dimples can affect ball flight. Some balls have 348 dimples, others 376, and still others 388. Applying multiple layers of paint to these various arrangements requires infinitesimal adjustments by highly skilled engineers.