Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, et al.

Background

Enhanced US LLC planned competitions featuring athletes who use performance-enhancing substances prohibited in most elite international competitions, as well as athletes who do not use those substances. Enhanced announced plans for the Enhanced Games in Las Vegas in May 2026. World Aquatics adopted By-Law 10, which makes a person ineligible to participate in World Aquatics events or competitions, work for World Aquatics, serve on its committees, or participate in other World Aquatics activities if the person supports, endorses, participates in, or supports another person’s participation in a sporting event involving certain prohibited substances.

Enhanced alleged that World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and WADA acted to prevent the Enhanced Games from competing with established aquatic-sports organizations. Enhanced claimed that the by-law and defendants’ statements made it harder to recruit swimmers, coaches, trainers, and other personnel. Its complaint asserted claims under Sections One and Two of the Sherman Act and a state-law claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations.

Enhanced moved for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of By-Law 10 and related threats. WADA moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). All defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Personal jurisdiction over WADA

The court denied WADA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) allowed the court to consider WADA’s contacts with the United States as a whole because Enhanced asserted federal claims and WADA argued that it was not subject to jurisdiction in any individual state.

The court found that Enhanced plausibly alleged sufficient U.S. contacts based principally on WADA’s stated intention to urge U.S. authorities to find legal ways to block the Enhanced Games. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court treated Enhanced’s allegations as true and concluded that this alleged effort was directed at the United States and related to Enhanced’s antitrust claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction was reasonable, considering the United States’ interest in adjudicating alleged violations of its antitrust laws and the efficiency of resolving the claims in one proceeding.

Antitrust claims

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims for failure to state a claim.

For the Section One claims, Enhanced alleged that the defendants conspired to exclude it from markets involving elite international swimming competitions and elite swimmers. The court held that Enhanced did not plausibly allege an agreement or conspiracy. WADA’s public statements were consistent with independent action, and Enhanced alleged no facts showing communications between WADA, World Aquatics, and USA Swimming that would support an agreement. The court reached a similar conclusion about USA Swimming’s statements and investigation of Enhanced’s head swim coach.

The court rejected Enhanced’s argument that By-Law 10 itself showed an agreement between World Aquatics and USA Swimming. The by-law applies to World Aquatics events and expressly allows member federations to choose whether to adopt a similar policy for their own events. Enhanced alleged that USA Swimming had not adopted such a policy. Accordingly, the court dismissed Counts One and Two against all parties.

For the Section Two claims, the court held that Enhanced had not plausibly alleged that World Aquatics possessed monopoly or monopsony power. Enhanced’s theory incorrectly assumed that By-Law 10 applied to every elite international swimming competition, even though the by-law applies to World Aquatics events and does not automatically govern competitions hosted by national federations or independent organizers. The court therefore dismissed Count Four, alleging monopolization, and Count Five, alleging monopsonization.

The court also dismissed Count Three, which alleged a conspiracy to monopolize, because Enhanced had not plausibly alleged concerted action. It dismissed Count Six, alleging attempted monopolization and monopsonization, because Enhanced had not adequately pleaded any degree of monopoly or monopsony power and therefore could not show a dangerous probability of obtaining that power.

State-law claim

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Enhanced’s state-law claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations after dismissing the federal claims. The court also stated that, if Enhanced could independently rely on diversity jurisdiction, the claim failed as pleaded because Enhanced referred only generally to categories such as elite swimmers, coaches, trainers, and support personnel rather than identifying the potential customers or business relationships involved. The court therefore dismissed Count Seven as well.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, denied WADA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied Enhanced’s motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The court granted Enhanced leave to file an amended complaint addressing the identified defects within 30 days. If Enhanced did not amend by that deadline, the court stated that it would enter judgment for the defendants consistent with the opinion and order.