Bubba’s Boneless Ribs Lawsuit: Settlement and Patent Countersuit

The Bubba’s Boneless Ribs lawsuit is a chain of federal court fights in New Jersey between former NFL defensive end Al “Bubba” Baker’s family and their Shark Tank investor Daymond John, together with co-packer Rastelli Foods Group. It ended, for now, with a permanent restraining order against the Bakers in July 2023 for breaching a 2019 settlement’s non-disparagement clause, and a March 2026 ruling that stripped the family of standing to pursue their own patent infringement counterclaims.

What the Bakers Said Went Wrong

The Baker family — Al, his wife Sabrina, and daughter Brittani — pitched a patented boneless pork rib process on Shark Tank in December 2013 and accepted an on-air offer from Daymond John of $300,000 for 30% equity. They later alleged that once the cameras stopped, John revised the deal to $100,000 for 35%: less money for a larger share.¹ John’s side never publicly confirmed or denied those numbers, citing confidentiality.

Rastelli Foods came on as co-packer in 2015 under a licensing agreement that gave it exclusive rights to manufacture, package, distribute, and market the product in exchange for royalties.² Sales reportedly reached $16 million within two years, helped by a large order from CKE Restaurants for Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s.³

The Bakers say they saw roughly $660,000 — about 4% — of that reported revenue, and accused John and Rastelli of misleading them, keeping Al Baker out of key meetings, denying real-time financial information, and trying to seize control of the company.⁴⁵ They also raised concerns about the accounting between John and Rastelli, calling it potentially “fraudulent and illegal,” and objected that a former Shark Tank contestant John hired to build the website also controlled the business bank account.¹

John’s position throughout was that his role was “brand ambassador,” that he was a nonmanaging partner with no control over the books, and that the family’s accusations were a “false narrative” he could not fully rebut because of confidentiality.¹⁶

The 2019 Settlement That Changed Everything

Long before the dispute was public, the two sides had already litigated. In a mediation overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, they signed a settlement on September 5, 2019 that released all existing claims and reset the financial terms going forward. The Bakers were to receive roughly $133,333 in payments ($33,333 upfront and the balance in monthly installments), plus a royalty of 4% on the first $5 million in gross sales and 3% above that.⁷

The agreement also contained a mutual non-disparagement clause barring either side from publicly disparaging or defaming the other on social media or through news outlets, a confidentiality provision, and a forum-selection clause for future disputes.⁸ That non-disparagement clause is the hinge on which the 2023 case turned.

The Public Campaign That Triggered the Suit

In May 2023, the Los Angeles Times published an investigation in which Al Baker described his experience with John as a “nightmare” and detailed the family’s allegations about revised deal terms, the profit disparity, and their exclusion from decisions.¹ Around the same time, the family began posting on TikTok, Instagram, and other platforms, sharing videos, internal emails, business documents, and a recording of a phone call between John and Brittani Baker. The posts called John a “master manipulator and a thief” and said he was “not to be trusted.”⁴

John’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter on May 21, 2023. He and Rastelli Foods then sued the three Bakers in federal court in New Jersey, seeking temporary restraining orders. John’s complaint characterized the social media activity as a “willful and malicious smear campaign” and alleged it cost him a $50,000 to $75,000 speaking engagement, led a “major television network” to cancel a previously greenlit show, and caused a major brand to end discussions with him.⁸

An amended complaint filed June 7, 2023 added a claim that Al Baker had run about $60,480 in unauthorized personal expenses through the company credit card since March 2020. The Bakers said those were legitimate business expenses that had been refunded monthly.⁹ John also asserted he had operated at an “overall financial loss” from the venture while the Bakers had personally earned at least $744,600. The Bakers represented themselves.¹⁰

The Restraining Orders and What the Court Found

On June 16, 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding the Bakers had breached the 2019 settlement’s non-disparagement clause. The order temporarily barred them from publicly discussing their Shark Tank experience or the business, and from making disparaging comments about John or Rastelli.⁹

On July 21, 2023, Judge Kugler consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2) and issued a permanent injunction. The court held that the 2019 settlement was valid and enforceable, that the Bakers had breached its non-disparagement provision, and that John and Rastelli were in “full compliance” with the agreement and had committed no material breaches. The judge found that the Rastelli parties had spent at least $1.5 million on required company expenses, used commercially reasonable means to produce and sell the product, provided monthly financial reports, and made all required payments. The Bakers, the court noted, had never exercised their contractual right to audit the books.¹¹

The permanent injunction “forever barred” Al, Sabrina, and Brittani Baker from making any public comments “that may be considered in any way negative, disparaging, or false” about Daymond John, DF Ventures, or Rastelli Foods Group. It also prohibited them from encouraging anyone else to make such comments and ordered them to remove all related social media posts.¹² The Bakers’ attorney said the posts came down by July 23, 2023.¹³ No monetary damages were awarded beyond the injunctive relief.¹¹

The Bakers’ Patent Countersuit and the Standing Problem

The Bakers went on the offensive in a separate case, filed as No. 24-cv-08882-ESK-AMD, alleging patent infringement and breach of the 2019 settlement. Their complaint claimed the defendants had started selling competing products under the name “Rastelli’s Boneless Ribs” without consent, had failed to pay royalties from 2020 through June 2023, and had misrepresented the patented boneless rib process as belonging to the Rastelli defendants.²

In a March 2026 opinion, the court dismantled the patent side of the case. The Bakers hold patents on the deboning process issued in 2010 and 2011, but in November 2015 those patents were assigned to an Ohio limited liability company called JabezBaker LLC, which had been dismissed from the case earlier. Because the Bakers could not show any transfer of the patent rights back to themselves, and conceded the assignment during the proceedings, the court found they lacked standing to bring the infringement claims.²

Where Things Stand

Bubba’s Boneless Ribs stopped production in May 2023. The online store no longer works, the FruityQue sauces are unavailable, and the original Bubba’s-Q restaurant in Avon, Ohio had already closed in 2019.¹⁴ The permanent injunction against the Bakers remains in force, and the 2026 standing ruling leaves the patent claims in their follow-up suit against Rastelli without a plaintiff who owns the rights being asserted.² Al Baker has moved into work as a football commentator; Brittani Baker is working as a hospitality consultant and with the software company SpotOn.

1
Los Angeles Times. Shark Tank Lawsuit: Daymond John Restraining Order Against Al Bubba Baker
2
Fox Rothschild. Baker v. Rastelli Opinion
3
CNBC. Shark Tank Host’s Biggest Deal Ever: From $154,000 to $16 Million in Sales in 3 Years
4
CBS News. Shark Tank Restraining Order: Daymond John and Al Bubba Baker
5
Los Angeles Times. Daymond John’s Restraining Order Shark Tank Ruling
6
Cleveland 19 News. Former Cleveland Brown Al Bubba Baker Claims Deceptive Practices by Shark Tank Investor Daymond John
7
GovInfo. USCOURTS-njd-1_23-cv-03126
8
People. Shark Tank: Daymond John Granted Permanent Restraining Order Against Former Contestants
9
Los Angeles Times. Shark Tank: Daymond John Restraining Order Bubba Baker
10
Yahoo Entertainment. Daymond John Granted Restraining Order
11
GovInfo. USCOURTS-njd-1_23-cv-03126
12
USA Today. Shark Tank Investor Daymond John Restraining Order Bubba Baker
13
Fox 13 Seattle. Shark Tank Star Daymond John Granted Permanent Restraining Order Against Former Contestants
14
Food Republic. Bubba’s Boneless Ribs Shark Tank Now