The title, the brand that has built its reputation in accuracy and quality, is being sued in a proposed classroom action claiming that its premium pro v1x boxes have left DAS with expanded golf balls (EA) do not contain what was promised.
Presented on September 4, 2025, in the eastern district of Misuri, complaints name the six players from all over the country as a plaintiff, each claiming that they bought boxes labeled as they contain a dozen pro v1x left of the left EA. On the contrary, the boxes are suspected to contain only nine of the left -wing left balls and three pro v1x EA balls (a model with higher rotation with different performance features).
Lawsuit, Long et al. v. Acushnet Company (Issue No. 4: 25-CV-01332)Requires class certification on behalf of all buyers similarly placed and requires damage greater than $ 5 million.
(I kept my rose in the corner of my mouth when I wrote that last sentence.)
charges
According to the complaint, the “mixed boxes” of the title cheated the customers from:
- Replacing three balls for dozen with a different model
- Selling those boxes through large sellers including Golf Galaxy and PGA Tour Superstore
- Allowing replacements continue despite narrow quality control standards, title of Title often
The plaintiffs claim that they would not have paid the full price for the product if they knew that he contained less than the twelve left -handed balls.
12 complaints
Plaintiffs have packaged the lawsuit with a series of legal claims:
- Massachusetts unfair and deceptive acts – violation of ch. 93a by abusing the contents of the boxes
- Misappropriate/fraud fraud – consciously selling boxes with fewer left left balls than advertised
- Fraud by release – not detecting the Ball’s Pro V1X Ball replacement
- Careless misappropriation – Failure to take reasonable care in representing product content
- Violation of the pronounced guarantee – tagging “A left -left dozen EA” created a guarantee that was not honored
- The implicit guarantee violation – Merchantability – the goods did not match the label and were not of type and quality
- Implicit guarantee violation-adapting for special purposes-the buyer specifically required left-wing left balls; Highest Balls with rotation pro v1x ea do not serve this purpose
- Unjust enrichment – the title is suspected to be obtained by the extension of the left inventory while moving less popular Pro V1x EA Stock
- Missouri trade practices act – request for subclass deceitful sale in Missouri
- Violation of the Guarantee of Expression in Missouri-Research for State Specific Guarantee
- Missouri means guarantee – upgrade – just like Count VI, according to Missouri’s Law
- Missouri means guarantee – benefit for special purposes – just like Count VII, according to Missouri’s Law
Our taking
On the surface, this is a bad look for the title. When a brand builds its reputation in accuracy, consistency and quality control, even suggestions that it cannot certainly get the right golf balls in the right sleeves should hit. If the accusations are true, it is a flaw for a different great reputation.
That said, there is a significant difference here. The matter is not about the quality of the ball – no one is suggesting that Pro V1x EA or the left of EA are not in the usual title standards. If you bypass the conspiracy elements of the complaint, the charges are deducted for a packaging problem.
Honestly, the notion that the acushnet (the parent company of the title) threw a plot to throw the unwanted inventory does not pass the smell test. The fact is that the title continues to produce prior generation balls Pro V1 and Pro V1X because they still sell well. They help fill customers who require a premium product at a slightly lower price point. It is also true that the title routinely holds the oldest versions in production for tour players that prefer the performance characteristics for those offered by the latest model. These simple facts should ask a noticeable question: why would the title have to throw the inventory of a product that still deliberately produces in quantity?
Charges of deliberate cleaning strike me as absurd.
Most likely, Hanlon’s razor “” never attributed malice what is properly explained by disability ” – clearly applies here. Simple explanation (I think we can integrate Occam’s razor into discussion, too) is that a group of balls #4 pro v1x was entered in the wrong sleeves. The left looks almost identical, especially with the expanded stretch side.
If I could concrete about such things, I would put my money for the idea that a large basket of pro v1x was set, where an equally large left love basket had to go.
Does someone put someone a Pro V1X load where Dash should really qualify as malice? Do you support the notion of a conspiracy inventory landfill? Or, is it just a mistake in a mass line of production?
My best assumption is that we are talking about a single set of changed balls. While this is not an insignificant number, against the backdrop of title production volume, it falls very little of everything that will ensure reliability to the notion of a widespread inventory landfill.
Ball of Title III, where they are pro v1 and pro v1x (including left ram), produces somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 balls daily. Given that degree, it is extraordinary extraordinary so that mistakes do not occur more often.
Question $ 5 million
Plaintiffs require damage exceeding $ 5 million. To put it openly, this feels comical. In a sensitive world, this is the type of issue that can probably be resolved with a customer service email and a substitute dozen.
Sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to keep what you already have.
I think it says something about the increasingly incorporated nature of the world we live in. Why send an email when you can hire a lawyer to claim a widespread plot that includes (checks notes) setting golf balls on the wrong sleeves? You can’t fix it with an Ivermect dose.
Final thoughts
If proven, the allegations remind us that even the most reliable brands are not immune to mistakes. If these errors guarantee a multi -millions class action is another story.
What do you think? Is this a black eye for the title, or just an overloaded packaging mix?
Share your thoughts into comments.
A representative from the title/Acushnet declined to comment on this story.
office Title faces class action on claimed golf balls of “mixed box” first appeared in MygolfSSS.
