Blingle Lawsuit Explained: What Every Franchise Investor Needs to Know

If you have been searching for information about the Blingle lawsuit, you are not alone. Since 2023, thousands of prospective franchise investors, journalists, and attorneys have followed this case closely. The legal dispute involving Blingle and its parent company, Horsepower Brands, raised hard questions about franchise transparency, earnings misrepresentation, and the risks of buying into a fast-scaling home service brand. This article covers everything, from the original filing to the court outcome, the company response, and what the situation looks like today.

What Is Blingle and Who Owns It?

Blingle is a holiday, event, and landscape lighting franchise that operates under the Horsepower Brands umbrella. The brand started as Heroes Holiday Lighting, founded by Mike Marlow, and was acquired and rebranded by Horsepower in 2021. Horsepower was founded in 2020 by Josh Skolnick and Zachery Beutler with the goal of acquiring 25 home service brands by 2025. The company also owns iFoam, Mighty Dog Roofing, Gatsby Glass, and Bumble Bee Blinds.

Blingle was marketed as a turnkey business. Prospective buyers were told they could run it alongside a full-time job, that no lighting experience was necessary, and that corporate would provide world-class support. Those promises became the center of the Blingle lawsuit filed in 2023.

When Was the Blingle Lawsuit Filed?

On August 8, 2023, eight franchisee LLCs filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case is formally titled Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al., Case Number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG. The defendants included Horsepower Brands, HPB Lighting LLC doing business as Blingle Premier Lighting and Blingle, co-founders Skolnick and Beutler, and Mike Marlow. Franchise Times first reported the case in early 2024 after franchisee Jennifer Koepke brought it to their attention.

What the Blingle Lawsuit Actually Claimed

The allegations went well beyond ordinary business disappointment. Franchisees claimed the model was designed to extract money without delivering support.

During a pre-sale discovery day, Horsepower cited revenue of $822,928 from the Omaha location run by Marlow. The lawsuit claims the company never disclosed that this location had operated for a decade and included landscaping services Blingle does not offer. Horsepower's VP of franchise development, Thomas Ricketts, allegedly told buyers to expect $400,000 to $600,000 in year one and around $1 million in year two. After signing, former Blingle President Travis Miller allegedly acknowledged in an email that margins were thin and breaking even in year one was the actual goal.

The fee structure was a major complaint. The Blingle lawsuit detailed the following required costs:

•        A $59,500 franchise fee and an 8.5 percent royalty on all revenue

•        A $50,000 initial lighting inventory package from a required supplier

•        A $25,000 opening package plus $12,000 for SEO services

•        $9,500 in technology fees with additional monthly charges on top

•        $4,995 for initial training and $3,600 per year for call center access

Franchisees also claimed they were required to buy inventory irrelevant to roughly 90 percent of their customers, and that training consisted of unrelated videos with no hands-on component. The lawsuit described Blingle as a scheme to get rich quick by preying on unsuspecting buyers. Not one of the eight plaintiffs had a profitable year. Many had not had a single profitable month.

How Did Blingle and Horsepower Brands Respond?

Blingle President Kevin Jones acknowledged the lawsuit but pushed back, noting strong fourth-quarter growth and criticizing franchisees for filing before completing even 12 months of operation. Two-unit franchisee Alex Quataert defended the brand, reporting first-year revenue of approximately $500,000 and suggesting that franchisees who never turned a profit either made poor decisions or underestimated what business ownership requires.

Horsepower Brands responded to broader questions by stating the industry faces a problem with prospective franchisees failing to carefully review legally mandated pre-sale disclosures. The company maintained this position consistently across all reporting on the matter.

What Happened in Court: The March 2024 Dismissal

In March 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Blingle lawsuit. The court never evaluated the merits of the claims. The case was thrown out because the franchise agreements contained a mediation clause requiring all disputes to go through mediation before any court action could be filed. The franchisees had skipped this step. The formal citation is Waldron et al v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al, Case Number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG (E.D. Pa. March 20, 2024).

Legal analysts noted the ruling as a clear reminder that mediation clauses in franchise agreements are strictly enforceable. They can prevent franchisees from accessing the courts even when the underlying claims are serious.

What Happened After the Dismissal

The dismissal did not end the wider problems surrounding Horsepower Brands. By late 2024, franchisees of iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing were raising nearly identical complaints. Former iFoam franchisees Werner and Leah Schaefer filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania claiming $2.2 million in losses, alleging inflated projections, territorial violations, and a total lack of meaningful corporate support after signing.

By early 2025, Franchise Times reported that only about 60 of all Horsepower franchisees across the network generated enough revenue to keep their doors open in 2024. In April 2025, dozens of Mighty Dog Roofing franchisees formed a formal association under the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers to push for better terms. New lawsuits alleged a calculated fraudulent inducement scheme based on FDD sales figures drawn from just two legacy outlets that bore no resemblance to what a new franchisee could realistically achieve.

What Franchise Investors Should Take Away

The Blingle lawsuit is a direct case study in what can go wrong with fast-scaling franchise platforms. A few practical lessons stand out.

•        Review the FDD in full: Pay close attention to Item 3 for litigation history, Item 7 for startup costs, Item 19 for earnings claims, and Item 20 for unit trends. In this case the FDD was allegedly revised after the lawsuit emerged to reduce future liability.

•        Hire an independent franchise attorney: A qualified attorney will catch mediation clauses, territorial limits, and fee structures that can trap you before you get started. Understand every dispute resolution provision before signing.

•        Contact former franchisees directly: The FDD lists current and former owners. Call them. Every franchisee who sued Blingle reported a reality that looked nothing like the discovery day sales pitch.

•        Scrutinize every earnings projection: If a franchisor uses data from a specific location, investigate it yourself. In this case, the flagship numbers came from a decade-old site offering services the model did not include.

Final Thoughts

The Blingle lawsuit ended with a procedural dismissal, not a ruling on the truth of what franchisees experienced. A mediation clause blocked their path to court. That outcome does not mean they were wrong. It means the agreement was structured, as many franchise agreements are, in a way that limits franchisee options from the start.

The broader pattern across Blingle, iFoam, and Mighty Dog Roofing tells a consistent story: rapid growth, heavy fees, limited training, and franchisees left to figure it out alone. Whether you are evaluating Blingle or any other home service franchise opportunity, this case is a reminder that the sales pitch and the operating reality can look very different once you are locked into an agreement.

Key Takeaways

•        The Blingle lawsuit was filed August 8, 2023, by eight franchisee LLCs in federal court in Pennsylvania.

•        Franchisees alleged fraudulent projections, excessive fees, inadequate training, and a business model designed to extract rather than support.

•        The case was dismissed March 2024 due to a mediation clause, not decided on the merits.

•        Similar complaints followed from iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing franchisees under Horsepower Brands.

•        In April 2025, Mighty Dog Roofing operators formed a formal franchisee association.

•        Any investor should review the full FDD, hire a franchise attorney, and speak with former franchisees before committing funds.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the Blingle lawsuit about?

A: It refers to a 2023 federal franchise dispute where eight franchisee LLCs accused Blingle and Horsepower Brands of misrepresenting earnings, providing inadequate training, charging excessive fees, and selling a business model structured to fail.

Q: Was the Blingle lawsuit successful?

A: No. It was dismissed in March 2024 because franchisees had not completed the mediation process required by their agreements. The court did not rule on whether the allegations were true.

Q: What fees did Blingle franchisees pay?

A: Key fees included a $59,500 franchise fee, 8.5 percent royalty, a $50,000 lighting inventory package, $25,000 opening package, $12,000 for SEO, $9,500 in tech fees, $4,995 for training, and $3,600 annually for call center access.

Q: Are other Horsepower Brands franchisees facing similar issues?

A: Yes. Franchisees of iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing have raised nearly identical complaints. In April 2025, a formal franchisee association was created by Mighty Dog operators to push for accountability.

Q: What should I do before buying a Blingle franchise?

A: Review the current FDD carefully, hire an independent franchise attorney, contact former franchisees listed in the FDD, verify all earnings projections independently, and understand every dispute resolution clause before signing.