Blingle Lawsuit: Franchisee Allegations and Dismissal

The Blingle lawsuit was a 2023 case in which eight franchisee LLCs sued Blingle! and its parent company, HorsePower Brands, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging the holiday and permanent lighting franchise operated as “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme” built on inflated earnings projections, excessive fees, and inadequate support. A federal judge dismissed the case in March 2024 on procedural grounds, finding that the franchisees’ contracts required them to mediate before filing suit, a step they had skipped. The court never ruled on whether the underlying allegations had merit.¹²

The case, Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al. (Case No. 2:23-cv-03485), named HorsePower Brands co-founders Josh Skolnick and Zachery Beutler along with executive Mike Marlow as individual defendants.³

What the Franchisees Alleged

Inflated Earnings Projections

The complaint centered on what franchisees said they were told before signing. According to the lawsuit, Thomas “Turp” Ricketts, the company’s Vice President of Franchise Development, told prospective franchisees to expect $400,000 to $600,000 in first-year earnings and roughly $1 million in the second year. At a “Discovery Day” recruiting event, the company allegedly pointed to an Omaha location that had grossed over $822,000 as a model, without disclosing that the location had operated for a decade and offered summer landscaping services that Blingle! franchises did not provide.³

Franchisees said they heard a very different message after signing. Former Blingle! President Travis Miller reportedly told them the realistic first-year goal was simply to “break even.” In an email cited in the complaint, Miller wrote: “I have heard from many of you that the margins just aren’t there. After working with a few of you on some projects and the associated costs, this became clear.”³ The suit alleged that none of the eight plaintiffs ever had a profitable year, and many never had even a single profitable month.

Fees, Inventory, and Training

Beyond the $59,500 franchise fee, the lawsuit listed a stack of additional charges the franchisees said they were required to pay:

A $50,000 “initial lighting package” of inventory the suit claimed was irrelevant to roughly 90 percent of customers
A $25,000 “opening package” fee
$12,000 for search engine optimization
$9,500 for technology, plus ongoing monthly charges
$3,600 annually for call center services
$4,995 for training
An 8.5 percent royalty on revenue

The royalty figure cited in the complaint differs from the 5 percent rate shown in more recent versions of Blingle!’s franchise disclosure document.⁴ Franchisees called the training “nonexistent or insufficient,” describing it as videos on irrelevant tasks with no hands-on instruction. Blingle! had marketed the opportunity as a “turnkey operation” that owners could run while keeping their full-time jobs; the plaintiffs said they were instead left to “cobble together a viable business plan” on their own.³

Why the Case Was Dismissed

In March 2024, the court dismissed the lawsuit without addressing any of the franchisees’ factual claims. The franchise agreements contained a mandatory mediation clause requiring disputes to go through mediation before litigation, and the plaintiffs had not completed that step.¹ The dismissal was entirely procedural, meaning the allegations about inflated projections, excessive fees, and inadequate training were never tested on the merits.²

HorsePower Brands’ Response

The company rejected the allegations. HorsePower Brands attributed franchisee struggles to buyers who fail “to take the time to carefully review and understand” the legally mandated pre-sale disclosures they receive before signing. “Success requires hard work, dedication, and an understanding of, and compliance with, contractual commitments,” the company said. “Success, however, is never achieved by throwing in the towel early and pointing fingers at your franchisor for business failures.”¹ HorsePower Brands called the various franchisee lawsuits “baseless” and described the claims across its brands as “copycat style.”

Related Lawsuits Against HorsePower Brands

The Blingle! case was one of several disputes involving HorsePower Brands concepts. Franchisees from iFoam, a spray foam insulation brand, and Mighty Dog Roofing have raised similar complaints about inflated revenue projections, inadequate training, and excessive fees.⁵

In November 2024, former iFoam franchisees Werner and Leah Schaefer sued HorsePower Brands, its co-founders, and CEO Tony Hulbert in Pennsylvania federal court, alleging they had been “illegally oversold” a five-unit franchise territory on “inflated and unachievable” financial projections. They sought rescission and $2.2 million in damages.¹ A judge granted HorsePower Brands’ motion to dismiss in part in July 2025, and the case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice in March 2026 after defendants filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.⁶

According to one Mighty Dog Roofing franchisee, 40 of the brand’s 143 territories had closed as of early 2025, with another 25 on the verge of closing, and only about 60 territories reportedly generated enough revenue to sustain operations in 2024.⁵ HorsePower Brands has not filed for bankruptcy or undergone any reported corporate restructuring, and continues to operate nine home service franchise brands, including Blingle!, Mighty Dog Roofing, iFoam, Gatsby Glass, and Bumble Bee Blinds.¹

1
Franchise Times. Franchisees Allege HorsePower Brands Provided Inflated Annual Projections
2
Reserved Powers. Blingle Lawsuit
3
Franchise Times. Blingle Franchisees Set Up to Fail in Ponzi Scheme Model, Lawsuit Alleges
4
PeerSense. Blingle! Franchise
5
Franchise Times. For Locations on Brink of Closure, Franchisees Say HorsePower Brands Falls Short
6
PACER Monitor. Schaefer et al v. HPB Foam LLC et al