Wondering about the blinglelawsuit? Learn what franchisees alleged, why the court dismissed the case, and what it means for you now.
I’ll be the first to admit, when I first saw blinglelawsuit as one word in a search box, I thought it was a misspelling. Some cheeky person was trying to be clever and get a quick search for “Blingle lawsuit” before he could get going too much in the morning.
Trust me, I’ve been known to do that for 10 or 12 other things I shouldn’t have been rushing so much to fire out.
And then I really dug in. It actually isn’t a stray keyboard mash at all.
It is actually a real search term that thousands of people type , franchise buyers running dues diligence on this Business Law dispute at midnight, current Blingle owners refreshing search results out of nervous habit, and ordinary homeowners who just booked a holiday light install and suddenly get “lawsuit” thrown at them as a Google suggestion. I went to the source so I got the original court documents. I compared him to several legal databases, and I siftinged out the truth from the false on this Business Law matter. And this is what I learned about the blinglelaw suit.
Detail
| Information | Details |
| Case name: | should be printed in the center and in capital letters. Use only the first and second names of the case. It should be underlined. Though, used if the reference is to an earlier case. |
| Repeated reference: | If you cite a repeated reference to the same case, then you have to use a short form. The second case is Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al. |
| Court: | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Filed: | |
| Number: | 8-8-23 |
| Plaintiffs: | 8 Franchise businesses of Blingle! |
| Defendants: | SVHB Marketing LLC (doing business as Horse Power Brands), HPB Lighting LLC, and others so. |
| Core claims: | First I have summarized to core claim of this article. |
This is the core claim that the article would like to make. Fraud; breach of contract; consumer safety violations; criminal elements of the RICO statutes; and many other legal charges.
Dismissed March 2024 where mediation was supposed to be undertaken, but not completed. (Referral for mediation)
Ruling on the merits? No, was procedural.
Is the Blingle Lawsuit Real? Quick Answer
Yes. It is true, it is public, and you can check for yourself in about two minutes. Eight franchisee businesses sued the owners of Blingle, its parent company, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The court threw the case out in March 2024, not because it refuted the complaints, but because of a technicality in the franchise agreement itself. That is precisely what this entire blinglelawsuit is about, so remember it!
Blingle wasn’t even the company being sued here. Mike Marlow started it as Heroes Holiday Lighting. In 2021, franchise holding company Horsepower Brands bought it, rebranded as Blingle! and grew it quickly. And I mean fast:
- Opened its first site in early 2022.
- Reach 36 units by this date.
If you’ve ever witnessed the rapid growth of a small business, you know that this sort of growth can create either a real success story or a house of cards. Occasionally, it can be a little bit of both.
Founded by Josh Skolnick and Zachery Beutler in 2020, Horsepower Brands has a goal to acquire 25 home-service brands by 2025.
- Gatsby Glass
- Bumble Bee Blinds
Think of Horsepower Brands a little more like a holding umbrellaone parent, several very different service brands living below it.
What the Blinglelawsuit Actually Alleged
Eight franchisee LLCs filed a federal suit on August 8, 2023. Its easy to check this directly by case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG.
The franchisees did not hold anything back.
The dissatisfied franchisee’s complaint contended Blingle was not so much a turnkey opportunity as a get- rich-quick scheme, ripping off new franchiseesby extracting franchise feesrather than building a business for its invested franchisees.
Breach of contact.
A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform one or more of its contractual obligations without a valid reason.
Different types of violations of consumer protection federal RICO (a law that tends to be seen as evidence of pattern-based, organized crime]):. That’s quite a hefty legal hammer to be wielding.
The Arrangement of fees that is in Question
Details distinguish a decent article from an ambiguous water cooler, so here’s what the individual franchisees report having paid:
- $59,500 franchise fee alone to get through the door.
- 8.
- 5% patent usage licensing fee on revenue
- 9.
- 5% ongoing royalty.
- Front to depositup to $25,000 for an “opening package.
- ” $ 50,000 for opening lighting inventory
- $12,000 for SEO services.
- $9,500 for installing technologies
Add it up, and a franchisee could easily be six figures in the hole before ever hanging out a single string of lights for a paying customer.
The franchisees maintain that “business in a box” package didn’t include the training, back-office infrastructure, or operating assistance that warranted those figures.
Imagine going to buy a car that is supposed to be fully equipped and finding that the air conditioning, satnav and half the safety features are extras and up to you to organize.
That is pretty much the irritation level of the claim.
Why the March 2024 Dismissal Matters
A lot of sites get lazy here, and frankly, this is the single most important aspect of the entire blinglelawsuit saga. It was dismissed by the court in March of 2024. That part is true.
But truth is the court dismissed it is relevant to how you should interpret this.
When the owners signed franchise agreements with the various franchises, it included a mandatory mediation clause, a requirement to go through mediation before filing in federal court.
The plaintiffs did not go through it; instead they immediately filed the case in federal court. As a result, the court dismissed the case on procedural grounds like so:
“You cut in front of the line, go through mediation first.”
That’s different from the court’s declaring the allegations to be untrue.
He hasn’t said Blingle was without fault, nor has he said it was right for the franchisees. He hasn’t addressed the matter on the facts at all.
Think of a referee calling off a game because a player didn’t wear the proper gear. You never actually played the game so you can’t have scored or conceded.
I have seen a number of sites blur this line so badly as to seem almost coached to mislead, either sensationalizing it as “Blingle skated due to fraud” or twisting it as “the suit was without merit.” Neither of these takes is correct.
The truthful, unglamorous truth of the matter: the case was dismissed procedurally and never addressed the issue itself.
Are There Similar Allegations Against Other Horsepower Brands Companies?
It’s been reported that blinglelawsuit isn’t alone. Other franchisees operating with different Horsepower Brands companies, such as iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing, have alleged similar issues on exaggerated projections and lacking franchisee support.
Worth flagging obvious: these are separate fires, file separately, and shouldn’t factor into any actual proof of X actually occuring at Blingle. Yet, it’s a popular pattern to keep an eye out for any brand form that portfolio.
What Does the Blinglelawsuit Mean for Customers?
Perhaps the franchise saga isn’t even relevant to you. Perhaps you’re just glad you called your local Blingle when it was time to decorate for the holidays and you’re thinking, do I have to be concerned? Take a deep breath, you probably shouldn’t.
This lawsuit deals only with the business relationship between the corporate franchisor and the franchisees. It has nothing to do with whether your local crew does great work or installs lights safely. Still, a little caution never hurts.
Practical steps:
- Get all prices writing down before even a single person ever gets on the ladder.
- Check reviews locally for your specific local franchisedo not just look at reviews for the national brand.
- Maintain documentation of each payment and contract you have.
- First, bring up any issue directly with the local owner in writing.
What Franchise Buyers Can Learn From the Blinglelawsuit
This is where the blinglelawsuit begins to shine as a real case study is when outdoor lighting isn’t your thing. Under federal law each franchisor must provide the prospective franchisee with a Franchise Disclosure Document(FDD).
Item 3 of the FDD states any litigation history and the related litigation would have to be listed there.Check through the full FDD, and not just the summary page. Ask the franchisor directly about any pending or past litigation and how it was resolved.
Interview existing and past franchisees, not just the references selected for you by the franchise company.Learn about the dispute-resolution clauses. Dead wrong, as this case shows.Those provisions can be the difference between having a chance in courtand not having a chancein court.
With the agreement I liken it to purchasing a home.You wouldn’t buy without an inspection and relying solely on the house pictures.
You should not do same here with a franchise agreement probably even less since you’re paying for something you’ll be doing for years of your working lifesomething owned by someone else.
Is the blinglelawsuit still alive in 2026?
No. The action was dismissed on procedural grounds in March 2024.
As public records, there has been no reported settlement or future American Civil Litigation filed.
Did the court rule that Blingle committed fraud?
No.
not on the merits (truth of the allegation in respect to the alleged fraud) alone.
Can I actually read the case documents?
Yes.
You can do a search for the case, docket number 2:23-CV 3485MS-G, in the US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania using PACER or various other legal databases.
Would this influence me hiring Blingle for lighting?
Not to any great extent. This was a franchise business one, not a consumer-safety or service-quality one. Check local reviews too. Make sure you get everything in writing.
Key Takings:
- Yes, the lawsuit is authentic. Eight franchisees have filed a federal lawsuit against the parent company of Blingle’s, Horsepower Brands.
- The incident: Waldron et al.
- v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al. where case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG.
- The court rejected it in March 2024, but only on the procedural technicality and not due to any refutation of the allegations.
- Allegations of fraud, breach of contract, and RICO!
- centered on over-fee-ing and the non-delivering promised!
- The lawsuit doesn’t reveal any local service provision issues.
- This was a business dispute between franchisor and franchisees, not a consumer safety matter.
Additional Resources:
- CourtListener: free public access to the Waldron v. SVHB Marketing docket and related federal filings.
- Federal Trade Commission, Franchise Rule guidance: official government resource explaining what a Franchise Disclosure Document must include and how to read one: ftc.gov (search “Franchise Rule”).