Lawsuit Says Rawlings Falsely Advertised Baseball, Fastpitch Bats as Materially Improved, Despite Only Cosmetic Upgrades

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit claims that Rawlings Sporting Goods Company has falsely advertised that certain baseball and fastpitch bats have been materially redesigned or improved, even though the bats, unbeknownst to consumers, were certified by governing bodies for cosmetic, appearance-only changes.

Get class action lawsuit and class action settlement news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 31-page false advertising lawsuit charges that Rawlings, which sells baseball and fastpitch bats under the brand names Rawlings, Easton, Combat, Miken, and Worth, has marketed and advertised that the bats at issue have materially improved while at the same time indicating to certifying bodies that the only changes made to the bats were purely cosmetic.

“A reasonable consumer would consider it important to know that a manufacturer denied material changes in its certification submissions while advertising those same changes to consumers as being improvements on the bat’s performance,” the complaint says, calling Rawlings’ advertising of the bats a “half-truth marketing scheme.”

The products at issue in the class action lawsuit, which generally retail for between $200 and $600, include the following, separated by certifying body and model years:

• BBCOR: ICON (2024, 2025), CLOUT AI (2025), MACH AI (2025), ICON Pro Preferred (2025), Electric Unicorn (2025), MAV1 (2025), ROPE (2025), Alpha (2023);
• USSSA: ICON (2024, 2025), Hype Fire (2025), MAV1 (2025), Encore (2023), Hype-Comp (2023);
• USA Baseball: ICON USA (2025), Hype Fire (2025); and
• Fastpitch: Mantra 2.0, Mantra 3.0, Ghost Unlimited (2024), Ghost (2023).

Rawlings has made specific, performance-related representations related to the above-listed baseball and fastpitch bats in advertising and marketing materials, the lawsuit states. The case says that the bats’ various product pages include claims such as “new and improved,” with “electrifying updates” and “next-gen” designs for “maximum allowed performance,” which signify that Rawlings intended to convey to consumers that the baseball bats featured material changes.

This pattern, the lawsuit asserts, is repeated across the product pages for multiple years and models of Rawlings-manufactured bats.

According to the suit, all non-wood bats must be certified by the Batted Ball Coefficient of Restitution (BBCOR), the United States Specialty Sports Association (USSSA) or the USA Baseball Bat Standard (USA Baseball) before they can be used in organized leagues or games.

The lawsuit conveys that there are two ways to obtain certification for a baseball or fastpitch bat, either by submitting the bat model to an approved laboratory to confirm it meets the governing bodies’ performance requirements, or a cosmetic-change pathway in which a manufacturer represents that the new bat model includes no physical, performance-effecting design changes, and is restricted to changes in paint color or other minor tweaks.

Regardless of the manner in which a bat receives certification, the case says that all approved bats must be marked with a sticker showing the applicable league’s certification mark, although the stickers do not bear any additional information. Essentially, consumers have “no practical way” to discern whether a given baseball or fastpitch bat was certified with material changes or with minor cosmetic updates, the class action lawsuit says.

The plaintiff obtained information through a public records request to Washington State University that showed Rawlings Sporting Goods had certified its bats through the cosmetic-change pathway, in direct contradiction of its claims on product pages and advertising and marketing materials that the bats’ design and performance had been improved, the filing says.

For example, the Rawlings ICON-branded USSSA 2024 baseball bats are marketed with representations that the bats have “all new tapered, more flexible handles” that will increase swing speeds and deliver “more force,” the lawsuit says. Similarly, the product page for Rawlings’ Mantra 2.0 Fastpitch model touts that the bats feature a “fully reconstructed F2 collar,” with a “15% thinner barrel” and an “ENHANCED Ultra-Light End Cap,” once again drawing attention to changes that appear to be entirely physical and performance-oriented, the suit maintains.

The lawsuit contends that while Rawlings has “concealed” changes to the physical design of its baseball and fastpitch bats when obtaining certifications, the company had no issue prominently advertising and marketing the bats as featuring substantial design changes.

Had the plaintiff been aware of Rawlings’ “half-truth” marketing scheme, he would have paid significantly less for the bats or not purchased them at all, the case says.

The Rawlings Sporting Goods class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased any of the bats at issue.

Want to learn how to start a class action lawsuit? We’ve got you covered.