Gossip behind the Tent Line: ATA Lawsuit

On the 30th of May, a 63 page class-action antitrust lawsuit was filed in Utah accusing the US archery industry of colluding to fix the prices of products. According to the lawsuit, the Archery Trade Association (ATA) and its “co-conspirators” (judges appreciate a little drama in these filings) have since AT LEAST 2014  engaged in a coordinated scheme organised by the ATA to raise prices and prevent retail price competition for all archery products.

Where on earth do we start on this? As we all know archery kit is expensive. And it gets more expensive every single day .. but the law suit alleges price collusion and on a vast scale. Lets pick at a thread and follow where it leads ...

Who is Implicated: The action centres on the big sporting goods stores (like Cabela’s and Dick’s Sporting Goods), manufacturers like Hoyt, Mathews and PSE, mega retailer Lancaster Archery, the ATA itself and others. These big companies are all specifically named in the suit as "conspirators". However, while thousands of independent archery suppliers are not actually named, they are still on the hook as the action refers to "all members of the ATA since at least 2014" being co-conspirators! The action alleges that the non profit ATA coordinated this price fixing and pressured its members to police the policy. Eeek! That's a heck of an allegation.

Who is raising this action: The plaintiff is JOSEPH SANTARLAS who raised the action “on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.” That would appear to be anyone who bought archery kit from the listed organisations. Eight attorneys have signed the lawsuit. These lawyers hail from four different firms who seem to specialize in antitrust and class-action lawsuits. Their offices are in California, Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania. That's a lot of lawyer bills for Joseph getting "overcharged" a few dollars on his fletches.

Heart of the action: Whats in question here, before the lawyers started creating some of the most torturous narrative you've ever read, is about Minimum Advertised Pricing aka MAP. In general MAP policies came about as a method to combat online retail giants like Amazon who sell discounted products but without the expertise you typically get when buying in store. Asking CHATGPT "What is Minimum Advertised Pricing?" gave the response "A Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) is a policy set by a manufacturer that determines the lowest price retailers are allowed to advertise a product at, but it does not restrict the actual selling price. MAP policies protect brand image, create a level playing field for retailers, and prevent brand devaluation by controlling public price displays in advertisements". Industry insiders say such practices are legal and do not qualify as price fixing as defined by the Federal Trade Commission. The key distinction is that price fixing usually occurs between competitors, while MAP pricing occurs throughout the entire industry. Remember, there is no restriction for what an item can be sold for in store, just how much its advertised for.

Follow the Money: As noted earlier, there are 8 lawyers from 4 different companies on both the east and west coast involved in this. That's a lot of money being invested in this action. Commonly, lawyer costs can be between $150-$1000 an hour for EACH lawyer and they each need assistants/paralegals (another $50-$60/hr) ... remember PER HOUR! Also note the named companies are, with the exception of the not for profit ATA, all big companies with tens of millions of revenue. Put those two together and you might have a clue as to what this is all about. The suit demands, in Section IX PRAYER FOR RELIEF - note C  (page 59), triple damages and all lawyer expenses be paid by the defendants. Penny dropped yet? Hint .. $$$$$$$$$$$$. This smacks of a money grab on a vast scale i.e. bringing a meritless lawsuit in the hope the defendants will pay up to make the problem go away.

Where it gets really confusing is that there is a second action raised by ALEX JANOCHOSKI in Minnesota which could be a scam on a scam. Filed five weeks after the earlier case, Alex may be trying to piggyback his 79 page copycat action on the first. The two suits look disturbingly similar in places making me think there as been some copying of homework going on. Both suits are linked below if you have insomnia and need something to bore you to sleep. That said there are laughable moments .. like when it was suggested that arch rivals Kinsey’s Outdoors and Lancaster Archery Supply might actually collude in anything.

The best things in life are free ... But you can give them to the birds and bees

Putting it in context: Industry insider Greg Poole of the Bowjunkie podcast spent quite a bit of time decrying and ranting about the Utah action on a recent podcast. While no lawyer, he did point out (ad nauseam) that the action never seems to mention MAP only refers to advertising. In his very unlearned opinion, its a LOLsuit and its going to come a cropper in the courts. In addition, the Minnesota action mentions him by name and uses some of his podcast material out of context as "evidence" (P59 para 123). Suspect he'll be speaking to lawyers of his own after that little faux pas by Mr Janochoski.

Where is this going?: There is no way that this makes it to trial. This is a speculative cash grab looking to settle out of court. Problem for the plaintiff(s) is, the defendants actually do have deep pockets yet to settle might well open them up to future action. It may be best to take this one to trial and see if Mr Santarlas has the cohones to take this deep into discovery and beyond. Given how "inventive" the lawyers were in their prose, I suspect they are going to struggle to prove that price rises were solely collusion and not inflation, material price rises, R&D costs and the like. They do seem to think a $50 Chinese knock off sight is the same as a $600 Axcel one. If it did get to a resolution and the judge found for the plaintiff, the impact on archery would be catastrophic with many suppliers simply vanishing overnight. Driven out of business by being undercut by discount sellers like Amazon and Chinese knockoffs. Lets hope that doesn't happen.

Final thoughts: Class action antitrust lawsuits can take several years to resolve. Typical cases can last up to three years to reach a conclusion. The really complex cases involving many defendants and many many billable hours can take four, five, six or even longer to reach a conclusion. So, rather than us stand around waiting, its probably a good idea that we meet back here in a year or two for an update. Take care and see you then.

*          *          *

The original 63 page blatant cash grab raised in Utah by Joseph Santarlas ... Case 2:25-cv-00436-DAK 
You can find the 79 page Minnesota version from Alex Janochoski on the ClassAction.org website ... CASE 0:25-cv-02788
Greg Poole of Bowjunkie did a podcast on the 63 page Utah action which can be found on BigGP talks ATA lawsuit.

Money image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay