Easton Must Face Baseball Bat Class Action Lawsuit, Buyers Say

Plaintiffs in an Easton false ad class action recently argued against the company’s dismissal bid saying that consumers having to pay a premium price for a “virtually useless” bat gives them the standing to sue.

Plaintiff Ricky Wisdom recently challenged Easton Diamond Sports LLC’s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, claiming that because he spent $160 on a “virtually useless” bat, he has the standing to sue.

Wisdom described Easton’s dismissal attempt as a “scattershot approach, arguing for dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims on mostly procedural grounds.”

In the motion to dismiss, Easton made numerous points, including the claim that Wisdom doesn’t have the right to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution because he hasn’t suffered any injury. Wisdom rejects this argument, claiming that purchasing a falsely advertised product is injury enough.

“Defendant insists that plaintiff has suffered no injury — not even a small enough injury to confer Article III standing — even though defendant’s false and misleading labeling caused plaintiff to purchase a $160 product that is now virtually useless to him,” Wisdom said in response to Easton’s argument. “Defendant’s other arguments are just as misguided.”

The Easton false ad class action was originally filed in May, alleging that the sports company mislabels the weight of its bats.

Wisdom purchased an Easton bat for his son, reasonably assuming that the weight was 22 oz. as indicated. However, further investigation showed that the bat weighed around 25 oz., a nearly 10 percent increase from the reported weight.

“Even a small difference in weight of 1oz or less is significant and material to the young boys and girls who play and compete with Easton bats,” Wisdom argued in his Easton class action. He also claims that using a bat of the wrong weight can affect a player’s performance and increase the risk that they will hurt themselves.

Wisdom argues that this practice is widespread, with numerous other consumers voicing similar complaints.

Easton responded to the case in July by filing a motion to dismiss. The company claimed that the suit was “frivolous and defective,” claiming that Wisdom “lacks standing to assert any of his claims, and fails to meet even the basic pleading standards as to the causes of action he seeks to bring.”

Easton made numerous points in their motion to dismiss, including the argument that Wisdom can’t bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law because he is not a California resident.

However, Wisdom clapped back at this claim, citing that “under California law, ‘state statutory remedies under the […] UCL may be available to non­-California residents if those persons are harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California.'”

Wisdom seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased Easton bats that were falsely advertised and mislabeled since Feb. 28, 2017.

Wisdom is represented by Robert R. Ahdoot, Theodore W. Maya and Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC; and Myles McGuire, Paul Geske and Jad Sheikali of McGuire Law PC.

The Easton Baseball Bat False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Wisdom v. Easton Baseball/Softball Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-­cv-­04078, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On Oct. 9, 2018, parents who say they purchased youth baseball bats too heavy for their children managed to dodge an attempt by Easton to dismiss the class action lawsuit.