The fallout from Good Good Golf’s controversial advertisement for a co-branded Callaway driver — which depicted casual violence toward a woman — has now stretched into the courthouse.
Jeffrey Lefkovits, formerly the vice president of brand and marketing at Good Good, filed a defamation lawsuit against his former employer and its former CEO and chairman, Matthew Kendrick, on Oct. 29 in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Lefkovits seeks $1 million in monetary relief, according to court documents obtained by The Athletic.
Lefkovits claims Good Good and Kendrick wrongly scapegoated him for the creative direction of the advertisement, and that the violent scene in question was not part of the original script Lefkovits approved.
The Good Good advertisement was designed to spoof the supernatural horror movie “Obsession,” promoting the Callaway driver as an addictive piece of equipment. In it, Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark charges at Alexis Miestowski, a member of the Good Good Girls group, and pushes her to the ground. As he stands over her, he says menacingly, “Do not touch my new driver.”
The advertisement drew widespread criticism after Good Good shared it on social media in August, and the golf influencer collective lost several high-profile partnerships, including its long-standing relationship with Callaway. Some retailers, such as Dick’s Sporting Goods and Target, pulled Good Good merchandise from their shelves.
The public golf course that’s a hidden gem of classic architecture
Gabby Herzig, Jorge Ribas and more
Lefkovits alleges the violent scene was not in the script Good Good content creator Sam Stamey wrote and shared with him a month earlier. Lefkovits says he approved that advertisement plan but was out of the office when it was filmed.
“On set, and without Lefkovits’s knowledge or participation, the team decided to film a shot in which Clark runs at Miestowski, shoves her to the ground, and, standing over her, says, ‘Do not touch my new driver,’” the lawsuit reads.
Lefkovits, who claims he signed off on the revised ad after Callaway had also done so, claims that after Callaway ended its partnership with Good Good, Kendrick’s narrative shifted regarding who was to blame for the company’s error and misjudgment.
The suit alleges that, first, Kendrick explained to staff that the responsibility sat with him as CEO. Then, days later, Kendrick’s story changed: He told Front Office Sports the marketing team approved the ad, and that Good Good had “removed people responsible” for it.
On Aug. 26, Good Good terminated Lefkovits’s employment. When Lefkovits asked whether his name would be shared publicly, he says in the lawsuit, Kendrick assured him it wouldn’t. Five days later, Front Office Sports published a story that revealed Lefkovits’s employment had ended.
Lefkovits claims that his reputation in the industry has been tarnished and he has been unable to secure new employment since.
“Every day that goes by without Defendants recanting their false statement, Lefkovits’s ability to provide for his family is further diminished,” the suit reads.
Kendrick, who eventually stepped down from his role, did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the lawsuit.
A Good Good spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit. “Our focus remains on creating a positive environment for our players, partners, and fans, and the future of Good Good Golf,” the spokesperson said.
The lawsuit also provides details about how company channels approved the original Good Good advertisement, according to Lefkovits. He alleges that Stamey circulated a first draft of the ad on Aug. 18, passing around a phone at the dinner table with Good Good’s talent team. No one suggested changes, Lefkovits claims.
Then, Lefkovits says, the next morning, Good Good sent the edit to Callaway. Callaway’s director of content and production at the time, Alex Upegui, replied, “Sweet. Good to go on our end.” That same day, Lefkovits alleges he sent Good Good leadership the edit and no one objected to the violent scene. Upegui has since left Callaway.
A teaser of the video was posted that day, and the full ad became public on Aug. 20, drawing immediate criticism.
