TaylorMade Lawsuit, Golf Giant Sues Callaway for $100M+ Over ‘Mud Ball’ Claims—What You Need to Know
TaylorMade Golf Company filed a false advertising lawsuit against rival Callaway on January 15, 2026, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. TaylorMade accuses Callaway of running a misleading campaign where sales reps use UV light demonstrations to falsely claim TaylorMade golf balls have uneven paint coverage and perform like “mud balls”—one of the most derogatory terms in golf. The case remains pending as of January 2026, with no trial date set.
What’s the TaylorMade Lawsuit About?
Here’s what went down. TaylorMade discovered that Callaway sales agents were going into golf pro shops and retail stores with UV blacklights, shining them on TaylorMade TP5 and TP5x golf balls, and telling customers the balls were defective.
In one video obtained by TaylorMade, a Callaway sales agent demonstrates the UV test for a customer. When the light hits a TaylorMade TP5 ball, it reveals darker spots where the UV coating appears uneven. The agent points to the dark spot and says: “Wow. Interesting because from my standpoint it looks like a gigantic piece of mud is right there…right above where it says TaylorMade.”
A mud ball is exactly what it sounds like—a golf ball with mud stuck to it that throws off its flight path. Calling a golf ball a “mud ball” is like telling a car buyer their engine is made of cardboard. It’s the worst insult you can throw at a golf ball manufacturer.
According to the lawsuit, Callaway’s reps are using these UV demonstrations to convince buyers that TaylorMade balls have poor quality control, uneven paint coverage, and inconsistent performance—all of which TaylorMade claims is scientifically false.
Who’s Involved in the Case?
TaylorMade Golf Company is headquartered in Carlsbad, California, and is one of the top golf equipment manufacturers in the world. They sponsor Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy, and Scottie Scheffler. TaylorMade has invested over $100 million in its golf ball business.
Topgolf Callaway Brands Corporation (formerly just Callaway Golf) is also based in California and competes directly with TaylorMade. They sponsor Jon Rahm, Xander Schauffele, and Sam Burns. Callaway recently sold Topgolf for $1.1 billion and is aggressively competing with TaylorMade for market share in golf balls.
Both companies trail Titleist, which dominates the golf ball market. According to Golf Datatech reports, Callaway and TaylorMade are fighting for second place—which explains why this lawsuit got so nasty.
What Are the Legal Claims?
TaylorMade’s lawsuit alleges:
False advertising under the Lanham Act – Callaway is making misleading statements about TaylorMade’s products to gain a competitive advantage.
Unfair competition – The UV demonstrations misrepresent the relationship between UV coating and ball performance.
Deceptive trade practices – Callaway’s sales tactics create false impressions about product quality.
The lawsuit argues that UV brightener dispersion has nothing to do with golf ball performance. The complaint states: “The patterns of UV brightener dispersion on a golf ball’s coating are not indicative of meaningful performance advantages or defects. The presence, thickness, or dispersion of UV brightener in one ball versus another bears no meaningful relationship to ball flight, distance, playability, or other performance attributes.”
In other words, TaylorMade claims the UV test is junk science designed to scare customers away from their products.
What Does TaylorMade Want?
TaylorMade is requesting a jury trial and seeking:
Injunctive relief – A court order forcing Callaway to stop the UV demonstrations and “mud ball” claims.
Financial damages – The lawsuit doesn’t specify an exact amount, but TaylorMade claims it has suffered lost sales and reputational harm. Given that TaylorMade invested over $100 million in its golf ball business, damages could easily exceed tens of millions of dollars.
Corrective advertising – TaylorMade may seek to force Callaway to issue public corrections or retractions.
This isn’t TaylorMade’s first rodeo. The company previously sued Costco over its Kirkland Signature golf balls and has been involved in patent disputes with other competitors. Corporate golf lawsuits are common—equipment manufacturers protect their brand reputations aggressively.
How Callaway Responded
As of January 27, 2026, Callaway hasn’t filed a formal response in court. But a Callaway spokesman told Golf Digest: “While we do not generally comment on matters in pending litigation, we continue to stand by the relevant science.”
That statement suggests Callaway plans to defend the UV demonstrations as scientifically valid—setting up a battle of expert witnesses over whether UV coating patterns actually matter for golf ball performance.
What Happens Next?
This case is in its early stages. Here’s what to expect:
Discovery phase – TaylorMade’s lawyers will demand internal Callaway documents, training materials for sales reps, and communications about the UV demonstrations. Callaway will do the same to TaylorMade, looking for any evidence that TaylorMade’s balls actually do have quality control issues.
Expert testimony – Both sides will hire scientists and golf ball engineers to testify about UV coatings, paint dispersion, and ball flight physics.
Settlement negotiations – Most corporate lawsuits settle before trial. Callaway may agree to stop the UV demonstrations and pay TaylorMade an undisclosed amount to make the case go away.
Trial – If the case goes to trial, a jury will decide whether Callaway’s UV demonstrations constitute false advertising. That could take 1-2 years.
Similar false advertising lawsuits like the Balance of Nature case show how expensive these fights get. Companies can face multi-million-dollar judgments if courts find their marketing misleading.
Why This Matters
This lawsuit is about more than golf balls. It’s about how far competitors can go in attacking each other’s products.
If TaylorMade wins, it sends a message that companies can’t use misleading demonstrations to trash competitors. If Callaway wins, it opens the door for aggressive comparison marketing tactics across industries.
For consumers, the case highlights a bigger issue: how do you know if marketing claims are real? Whether it’s supplements making false health claims or energy drinks mislabeling ingredients, false advertising lawsuits protect buyers from deceptive practices.
Common Questions About the TaylorMade Lawsuit
Has the case been settled?
No. As of January 27, 2026, the lawsuit is active and pending in federal court.
Can consumers file claims?
Not yet. This is a corporate lawsuit between TaylorMade and Callaway, not a class action. Consumers aren’t eligible for compensation unless TaylorMade files a consumer class action later.
Are TaylorMade golf balls defective?
TaylorMade denies any defects and says the UV test is scientifically meaningless. Callaway hasn’t provided evidence of actual performance problems.
What if I bought a TaylorMade ball based on Callaway’s claims?
You can’t join this lawsuit, but you may have individual consumer protection claims. Consult a consumer protection attorney if you believe you were misled.
Last Updated: January 27, 2026
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The TaylorMade lawsuit against Callaway represents a high-stakes battle over competitive marketing tactics in the golf industry. Stay informed as this case develops through the courts.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah