A real federal lawsuit was filed against entities connected to Blingle! and its parent company, Horsepower Brands: Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03485, filed September 7, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Nineteen franchise owners across roughly nine territories alleged inflated earnings projections and undisclosed costs.
The court dismissed the case on March 20, 2024. The franchisees had not completed mediation required by their franchise agreements. That makes it a procedural dismissal, not a ruling on whether the allegations were true. It is not a consumer class action; the docket classifies it as a franchise contract dispute. Franchisees at two other Horsepower Brands concepts have since reported similar complaints, at iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing, through 2025 and 2026.
The Verdict, Upfront
A real case exists. It was dismissed on a technicality, not on the facts. It is no longer an isolated incident, either. That last part is what most coverage misses.
Here is the case record:
- Case: Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al.
- Case No.: 2:23-cv-03485
- Filed: September 7, 2023 (per the federal docket)
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- Judge on the case: Mitchell S. Goldberg
- Plaintiffs: 19 named individuals and franchise LLCs, covering roughly nine Blingle territories
- Outcome: Dismissed March 20, 2024, for failure to complete mandatory pre-suit mediation
Some trade coverage cites an August 8, 2023, filing date. The docket itself lists September 7, 2023. This article treats the docket as authoritative.
What Is Blingle, and Who Owns It
Blingle! sells outdoor lighting installation and maintenance, landscape lighting, holiday lighting, and permanent exterior systems. It started as Heroes Holiday Lighting. Horsepower Brands acquired and renamed it around 2021.
Horsepower Brands is a home-service franchise company founded in 2020 by Josh Skolnick and Zachery Beutler. The model is simple: buy service businesses that already operate, then scale them fast under a shared support system. Its portfolio includes Blingle!, iFoam (spray foam insulation), Mighty Dog Roofing, and Heroes Lawn Care. Blingle itself grew from one open unit at the start of 2022 to 36 by year’s end. That growth pace matters here. Rapid scaling and franchisee complaints tend to travel together.
What the Lawsuit Actually Claimed
A note on sources comes first. The court sealed the complaint and its exhibits shortly after the case was filed. The full text is not publicly available. Everything below on specific allegations comes from Franchise Times’ direct reports on that sealed filing, not from independent review of the document itself. Treat these as reported allegations, not facts.
According to those reports, the plaintiff franchisees described the Blingle model as one designed to extract fees rather than support franchisee success. They called it a “business in a box” and said it did not deliver what it promised. The gap between projected and actual earnings sits at the center of the claim. A company representative reportedly told prospective buyers to expect $400,000 to $600,000 in first-year revenue and roughly $1 million in year two. A former Blingle president told franchisees a different story by email after they signed: break-even was the realistic year-one goal, and the margins “just aren’t there.”
The complaint also detailed costs beyond the $59,500 initial franchise fee. Plaintiffs cited an 8.5% royalty billed regularly, a start-up package fee of up to $25,000, a roughly $50,000 mandatory initial lighting inventory purchase from a specific supplier, a separate $12,000 SEO fee, and additional technology and call-center fees. None of the named franchisees turned a profit in a single year, plaintiffs said, and several never had a single profitable month.
None of this was tested at trial. The case ended before any court weighed in on whether these claims held up. The current FDD and direct conversations with current owners carry far more weight than these litigation figures for anyone who wants to assess today’s Blingle franchise economics.
Why the Case Got Dismissed
No court ruled Blingle liable for anything. The dismissal happened because the franchise agreements required mediation before litigation, and the plaintiffs skipped that step and went straight to federal court.
That is a procedural failure, not a merits ruling. Dismissals like this often come “without prejudice.” This means plaintiffs can still pursue mediation and potentially refile. This article could not independently confirm the exact terms of this particular dismissal order. No public docket shows a refiled Blingle case, a class certification, or a settlement tied to this lawsuit as of mid-2026.
This Isn’t a Consumer Lawsuit
This case has nothing to do with your transaction if you hired Blingle for a lighting job. The federal docket classifies it as “Contract: Franchise,” a dispute between franchise owners and the franchisor. Customers are not parties to it, and no refund process connects to this filing.
The Bigger Pattern: It Didn’t Stop at Blingle
This is the part that changes the story from an isolated 2023 event into a pattern that has not gone away. Franchisees at two other Horsepower Brands concepts have raised near-identical complaints since the Blingle case closed.
Operators at iFoam reported that the business was marketed to them as one that required no prior industry experience. They said the training they received afterward was inadequate, and their actual costs ran higher than what was disclosed. One veteran with no insulation background was reportedly quoted $180,000 for a required spray foam truck; the real cost landed closer to $225,000. He filed for personal bankruptcy in October 2023. Separately, franchisees Werner and Leah Schaefer sued iFoam and Horsepower Brands in federal court in Pennsylvania around November 2024. They sought to unwind their agreement and recover an alleged $2.2 million in losses, and they named Horsepower’s chairman, co-founder, and CEO individually.
A Mighty Dog Roofing franchisee told Franchise Times that 40 of the brand’s 143 territories had already closed by 2024, with another 25 at risk. Roughly 60 remained profitable enough to stay open. A group of Mighty Dog franchisees formed an association with the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers in April 2025 specifically to press profitability concerns. Horsepower Brands’ 2025 FDD discloses material litigation tied to its iFoam and Heroes Lawn Care affiliates. Litigation runs both directions here, too: Mighty Dog Roofing has also sued at least two of its own franchisees and alleged they opened competing businesses in violation of their agreements.
Horsepower Brands has pushed back publicly on the pattern. The company attributes the lawsuits to franchisees who did not carefully review legally required disclosures, and it calls some of the suits “copycat” claims.
None of this proves the original Blingle allegations were true. A pattern across sibling brands is not a legal finding. It is relevant context, though. The same complaint shape shows up again and again across this portfolio: inflated projections, thin training, costs the company did not fully disclose upfront.
What This Means for Blingle Franchise Buyers
Pull the current FDD before anything else. Three items deserve extra scrutiny given this history: Item 3 (litigation disclosures, where the Waldron case and any newer filings should appear), Item 19 (financial performance representations, worth a skeptical read given the gap alleged in the original complaint between verbal projections and reality), and Item 7 (startup costs, which the original complaint alleged were understated).
Talk to current and former owners directly, too. Ask whether actual first-year earnings matched what the sales team told them. Ask whether training prepared them for daily operations. Also, ask whether corporate support responded when problems came up. Ask whether disclosed startup costs matched what they actually spent. Ask if they would make the same investment again today.
A single dismissed procedural case carries different weight than a repeated pattern across a portfolio. Weigh both, but do not treat either one alone as your full answer. Bring a franchise attorney into the process before you sign anything.
What Remains Unconfirmed
No public record establishes any of the following: a finding of fraud, criminal liability, a damages award, bankruptcy tied directly to the Blingle litigation specifically, consumer class action status, or a system-wide business failure. A filed lawsuit does not prove any of these on its own, even a pattern of them.
FAQs
Is the Blinglelawsuit real?
Yes. It is a verifiable federal case: Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03485, filed September 7, 2023, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Was Blingle found liable?
No. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds before any court addressed the underlying claims.
Why was it dismissed?
The franchisees had not completed mediation required under their franchise agreements before they filed in federal court.
Does this affect customers who hired Blingle for lighting work?
No. It is a franchise contract dispute between owners and the franchisor, not a customer claim.
Does this one lawsuit mean Blingle is a bad investment?
Not by itself. Similar complaints have surfaced since at two sibling brands under the same parent company, though, and that pattern deserves a close look during due diligence, even though no court has proven any of it.
Is there an active lawsuit against Blingle specifically in 2026?
No public docket shows a refiled or active case against Blingle-related entities as of this update. Litigation involving sister brands iFoam and Mighty Dog Roofing has continued through 2025 and into 2026.
Should I avoid any franchise that has faced a lawsuit?
Not automatically. Franchise litigation happens industry-wide. Weigh the seriousness of the claims, whether the pattern repeats, current FDD disclosures, and direct conversations with existing owners.
Sources
- Justia Federal Court Docket, Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03485, E.D. Pa.
- PacerMonitor docket index for the same case
- Franchise Times, “Blingle Franchisees Set Up to Fail in ‘Ponzi Scheme’ Model, Lawsuit Alleges” (March 2024)
- Franchise Times, “For Locations on Brink of Closure, Franchisees Say Horsepower Brands Falls Short” (March 2025)
- Franchise Times, “Franchisees Allege Fraud at Mighty Dog as Franchisor Files Its Own Lawsuits” (April 2026)
Musarat Bano is a content writer for JudicialOcean.com who covers lawsuits, legal news, and general legal topics. Her work focuses on research-based, informational content developed from publicly available sources and is intended to support public awareness. She does not provide legal advice or professional legal services.
Sadia Parveen serves as an editor responsible for reviewing articles for clarity, structure, and editorial consistency. Her role is limited to editorial review and presentation, ensuring content remains neutral, factual, and suitable for informational publishing. She does not provide legal analysis or professional advice.
