Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: Bid to block World Aquatics’ ban on doping-friendly competitions dismissed, (Nov 18, 2025)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Enhanced US LLC seeks to disrupt the athletics industry by creating and promoting competitions that pit ‘non-enhanced’ athletes, those who abstain from performance-enhancing substances (PESs), against ‘enhanced’ athletes who choose to use prohibited PESs.

The federal district court in New York City dismissed Enhanced US LLC’s antitrust and tortious interference claims against World Aquatics, USA Swimming, Inc., and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) arising from their efforts to oppose the proposed “Enhanced Games,” a competition inviting both doped (“enhanced”) and clean (“non-enhanced”) athletes. Enhanced alleged that By-Law 10, World Aquatics’ rule barring anyone affiliated with doping-tolerant competitions from participating in World Aquatics events, was part of a coordinated scheme to exclude Enhanced from the markets for elite swimming events and elite swimmer services. The court first held that it possessed personal jurisdiction over WADA based on WADA’s alleged outreach to U.S. authorities to stop the Enhanced Games. On the merits, however, the court dismissed all Sherman Act conspiracy claims because Enhanced failed to plausibly allege any agreement between World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and WADA, noting that By-Law 10 binds only World Aquatics’ own events and leaves member federations free to adopt or reject similar policies. The court likewise dismissed the monopolization and monopsonization claims for lack of plausible allegations that World Aquatics holds monopoly power in any properly defined market. As a result, all claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and Enhanced’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied as moot (Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, No. 1:25-cv-07096-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025)).

Background. World Aquatics (formerly known as the Fédération Internationale de Natation), USA Swimming, Inc., and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) are the key entities governing aquatic sports worldwide and in the U.S., with World Aquatics setting eligibility rules for the Olympics and adopting anti-doping standards modeled on the World Anti-Doping Code. Enhanced US LLC seeks to “disrupt” this ecosystem by launching Enhanced Games, competitions open to both athletes who use performance-enhancing substances and those who do not, offering large prize purses and media-driven matchups between enhanced and non-enhanced competitors.

The defendants reacted strongly. WADA publicly condemned the concept as dangerous and vowed to urge U.S. authorities to block the event. USA Swimming warned its athletes and staff that participation could trigger anti-doping consequences, and it opened an investigation into Enhanced’s head coach. In June 2025, World Aquatics enacted By-Law 10, declaring any person who supports or participates in enhancement-embracing competitions ineligible for any World Aquatics event or role. Enhanced alleged that By-Law 10 chilled interest among elite swimmers, coaches, trainers, and event personnel, jeopardizing its ability to recruit the 20–30 elite swimmers necessary for its inaugural Games. These developments set the stage for Enhanced's antitrust and tort claims and the motions now before the court.

Enhanced filed suit on August 27, 2025, and concurrently moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar the defendants from enforcing By-Law 10, threatening penalties or retaliation against individuals associated with Enhanced, or disseminating false or misleading statements about the organization or its athletes. The defendants opposed the requested injunction and cross-moved to dismiss, asserting failure to state a claim and, specifically as to WADA, lack of personal jurisdiction. After considering WADA’s jurisdictional objections, the court largely denied Enhanced’s motion to obtain limited jurisdictional discovery.

Personal jurisdiction. WADA’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) was denied because the court concluded that it may exercise personal jurisdiction over WADA in accordance with Rule 4(k)(2). The court found that the first two prongs of Rule 4(k)(2) are satisfied because the claims arise under federal antitrust law and WADA disclaims being subject to general jurisdiction in any U.S. state. The core of the analysis focused on due process. Although close, the court concluded that WADA has sufficient minimum contacts with the U.S. because WADA’s president publicly stated that WADA would “urge U.S. authorities to find legal ways to block” the Enhanced Games and allegedly acted on that intent.

The court reasoned that this attempt to enlist U.S. governmental action was purposefully directed at the United States and connected to Enhanced’s antitrust claims, thereby satisfying the “effects test.” WADA’s general condemnations of the Enhanced Games, its funding sources, and its regulatory role were deemed irrelevant or insufficient on their own. Finally, the court found that exercising jurisdiction is reasonable because (1) the burden on WADA is not excessive, (2) the U.S. has a strong interest in adjudicating alleged antitrust violations affecting a U.S. company, and (3) consolidating all defendants in one forum promotes efficient resolution.

Failure to state a claim. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, finding Enhanced's complaint legally deficient, but granted leave to amend to cure the defects. The Section 1 claims (Counts One and Two), which alleged an unlawful conspiracy to boycott under the Sherman Act, were dismissed for failing to plead a conspiracy or agreement among the defendants plausibly. The court found that WADA's public statements against the Enhanced Games were consistent with its own independent policy of promoting clean sport, not evidence of a conspiracy with World Aquatics or USA Swimming.

Crucially, the claim against USA Swimming failed because World Aquatics’ By-Law 10 conditions access only to World Aquatics-hosted events or competitions, and Section 10.6 explicitly provides that a similar policy is optional at the national level for Member Federations (NMFs). Since Enhanced conceded that USAS has not yet adopted the policy for its own national events, the rule cannot be deemed a mandated or binding horizontal agreement between World Aquatics and the NMFs, thereby failing to establish the requisite concerted action.

The Section 2 claims (Counts Four, Five, and Six), including Monopolization, Monopsonization, and Attempted Offenses, were dismissed for failing to plausibly allege that World Aquatics possessed the requisite monopoly or monopsony power. The monopolization claim failed because By-Law 10 only affects access to World Aquatics-hosted events, not all elite international swimming competitions, as Enhanced claimed, meaning World Aquatics does not control the entire market.

The monopsonization claim (sole purchaser of elite swimmers' services) failed because Enhanced's assertion of a "100% share" was factually contradicted by the existence of other purchasers (NMFs and independent organizers). The direct evidence claim of depressed wages was insufficient, lacking a proper baseline for competition or facts showing an anti-competitive change in compensation across the entire market. Without pleading any degree of market power for the completed offenses, the attempted monopolization/monopsonization claim also failed as a matter of law for lack of a "dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power."

Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations (Count Seven). Given that all federal claims were dismissed at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the traditional factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity did not support retaining jurisdiction over the state-law claim, which was therefore dismissed without prejudice. However, because Enhanced indicated it possessed facts (specifically, the identity of third parties) that could cure the defects, the plaintiff was granted 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing all the deficiencies outlined in the Order.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-07096-JMF.

Judge: Furman, J.

Attorneys: Evan T. Barr (Reed Smith LLP) for Enhanced US LLC. Mari Grace (Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP) for World Aquatics.

Companies: Enhanced US LLC; World Aquatics

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews GCNNews