Ring Bomb Party Lawsuit: Its Pearl Time Suit and DSSRC Inquiry

The main lawsuit against Ring Bomb Party, the Alabama-based direct-sales jewelry company known as Bomb Party, was a tortious interference case brought by a competitor in Florida; it settled in late 2024 and was dismissed in early 2025. A separate advertising self-regulatory inquiry into income claims closed in July 2025 without any referral to government regulators. No FTC or state attorney general action against the company appears in the public record.¹

The Its Pearl Time Lawsuit

Its Pearl Time LLC, a competing direct-sales pearl and gemstone jewelry company that uses a similar live-party sales model, filed suit against Ring Bomb Party on October 20, 2023 in the Orange County, Florida Circuit Court (Ninth Judicial Circuit).² The complaint named Bomb Party along with twenty-three individual defendants who appear to have been former Its Pearl Time associates.³

The case was classified as a commercial and trade contract dispute, and the core allegation was tortious interference: essentially, that Bomb Party had wrongfully disrupted Its Pearl Time’s business relationships.²

It never went to trial. A notice of settlement was filed on November 27, 2024, followed by a joint stipulation for dismissal on January 29, 2025, and the court entered orders approving the settlement on February 18, 2025.² The terms were not made public. Minor docket activity continued into mid-2025, including an order striking a filing in May, but the substantive dispute is over.

The DSSRC Inquiry Into Income Claims

A parallel matter, sometimes conflated with the lawsuit, was an inquiry by the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), an advertising watchdog program administered by BBB National Programs. Case #223-2025 examined 18 social media posts and website claims by Bomb Party representatives on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok that the DSSRC said suggested a typical salesforce member could expect significant income or an affluent lifestyle.⁴

The flagged language included phrases like “financial freedom,” “be your own boss,” and “unlimited income,” along with posts referencing luxury vacation incentives that the DSSRC treated as implicit income claims.¹ The context matters: according to Bomb Party’s own income disclosure statement covering May 2024 through June 2025, about 60% of all reps earned zero commissions during that period, and among those who did earn, most held the entry-level “Topaz” rank with median annual gross commissions of roughly $1,190 before business expenses.⁵

Bomb Party cooperated. Of the 18 flagged posts, the company removed 12 and significantly modified three others, including one on its own website. The remaining three had been created by former representatives no longer active with the company, and Bomb Party documented its efforts to get them taken down: emailing and messaging the former reps, filing intellectual property complaints with Meta, and posting public comments on the content clarifying that it was unauthorized.⁴

The DSSRC administratively closed the case on July 10, 2025, concluding that Bomb Party had made a “good faith effort” and that its actions were “consistent with expectations for responsible self-regulation.”⁴ The DSSRC is a self-regulatory body, not a government agency, and its closure carries no legal penalty.

Consumer Complaints and Billing Disputes

Outside of formal litigation, complaints about Bomb Party have piled up at the Better Business Bureau. As of mid-2026, the company’s BBB profile lists 59 complaints filed over the previous three years. Bomb Party is not BBB accredited, and 38 of those 59 complaints are listed as unanswered.⁶

The complaints cluster around a few recurring issues:

Customer service (26 complaints): consumers unable to reach the company by phone or email, with support tickets going unanswered.
Service and repair (10): disputes with independent reps over inventory and product replacement.
Delivery (8): paid products that never arrived or could not be tracked.
Product quality (7): rings that turned fingers green, tarnished plating described as “spray paint” rubbing off within a month, and items appraised by outside jewelers as costume pieces despite being marketed as sterling silver.
Billing (6): unauthorized charges and difficulty canceling a $19.95 monthly back-office subscription that kept billing former reps after they stopped selling.

Bomb Party’s own FAQ page acknowledges the green-skin issue, attributing it to interactions between a wearer’s skin chemistry and the brass base metal used in its rings, and states that many items are double- or triple-plated with rhodium or silver, with some pieces made of .925 sterling.⁷ Where the company did respond to BBB complaints, it typically apologized for a “less than a great experience,” referenced internal support tickets, and said it had contacted the representative involved.⁸

The billing complaints are the ones most likely to affect former reps directly. Several reported that the $19.95 monthly technology fee continued to be charged after they attempted to cancel, and that the cancellation process itself was difficult to navigate. At least one complaint alleged the company failed to honor a promise to buy back leftover inventory from a departing rep.⁸

No Government Enforcement

Nothing in the public record shows an FTC investigation, a state attorney general action, or a consumer class action against Bomb Party. The Its Pearl Time case is closed, the DSSRC file is closed, and the ongoing consumer complaints remain individual disputes routed through the BBB rather than any government body.¹ The company continues to operate out of Alabama under CEO Lillian Coleman.

1
BBB National Programs. Ring Bomb Party DSSRC Closure
2
Trellis Law. Its Pearl Time LLC vs Ring Bomb Party LLC et al.
3
UniCourt. Its Pearl Time LLC v. Ring Bomb Party LLC
4
Truth in Advertising. Ring Bomb Party DSSRC Decision
5
Bomb Party. Bomb Party Income Disclosure Statement
6
BBB. Bomb Party BBB Complaints
7
Bomb Party. Frequently Asked Questions
8
BBB. Bomb Party BBB Complaints