A recently filed lawsuit may test the limits of how a dominant industry player responds to a disruptive and controversial market entrant.
Enhanced US LLC (“Enhanced”) has filed an antitrust lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction against World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”), claiming that the Defendants conspired to foreclose Enhanced from the markets for international elite aquatics competitions and the engagement of athletes for such events. According to its complaint, Enhanced was founded “with the goal of innovating and expanding the horizons of sports through the integration of science and technology to maximize athletic performance.” Unlike virtually every other American sport, Enhanced openly allows and promotes (but does not require) the use of Performance Enhancing Substances (“PESs”) by the athletes that compete in its events, including aquatic sports. PESs can include substances such as anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. Enhanced’s first multi-sport event – the Enhanced Games – is scheduled to take place in May 2026 in Las Vegas, Nevada, with swimming planned as the capstone event. Enhanced claims that athletes competing in its events will be compensated “far above the pay offered by the current sports-governing entities.”
World Aquatics is the international governing body for swimming and other aquatic sports. It partners with WADA to enforce anti-doping rules, including by implementing testing, education, and disciplinary measures in alignment with WADA’s regulations. USA Swimming is a member of World Aquatics and the national governing body for competitive swimming in the United States. Enhanced is not a World Aquatics member; rather, it is poised to act as a competitor to World Aquatics events.
Enhanced’s lawsuit challenges World Aquatics’ Bylaw 10, adopted in June 2025, shortly after the announcement of the Enhanced Games. The bylaw prohibits both athletes and non-athletes from actively supporting or endorsing a sporting event that embraces scientific enhancements, participating in any capacity in any such event, or supporting any other person in their preparation for or participation in any such event. According to Enhanced, individuals that violate Bylaw 10 will be subject to a potential lifetime ban on participating in any World Aquatics events or competitions and from being employed or engaged by World Aquatics in any capacity.
Enhanced claims that Bylaw 10 – and Defendants’ alleged actions in furtherance of it – “reflects a transparent effort to force World Aquatics’ and USA Swimming’s constituent members to boycott Enhanced and the Enhanced Games by holding hostage elite swimmers and support personnel under the threat of disqualification from future Olympic events and competitions controlled by World Aquatics.” Enhanced argues that Bylaw 10 stifles competition by depriving Enhanced of the opportunity to enter the market, depriving elite swimmers of the ability to maximize their commercial value, and denying fans the ability to watch never-before-seen contests between elite athletes, including “enhanced” athletes that use PESs.
Although this case is in its infancy, it has the potential to inform just how far dominant industry players can go in responding to the threat of a disruptive market entrant. The court will likely apply the rule of reason, a legal test that weighs whether challenged conduct does more to harm competition than help it. Judges (or a jury) must balance the anticompetitive harms against any procompetitive benefits – and consider if there are less restrictive ways to achieve the procompetitive goals if they outweigh the harms. Defendants have yet to file their responses to Enhanced’s complaint, but accepting the allegations as true, it would appear that Bylaw 10 could have the effect of substantially diminishing Enhanced’s ability to stage competitive, elite swimming events. The question then is, do World Aquatics’ rules accomplish a procompetitive purpose?
On one hand, banning performance-enhancing substances clearly serves a pro-competitive purpose. Every major American sport bans them, often with severe penalties, to protect both fairness and player safety. Baseball’s steroid scandals in the late 2000s show how damaging drug use can be to a sport’s credibility.
On the other hand, Enhanced could argue that Bylaw 10 goes much further. It punishes anyone — not just athletes — who has any connection to events that allow enhancements, even if they themselves never touch a banned substance. Coaches, doctors, and trainers could be banned simply for helping athletes prepare to compete in an Enhanced event. Assuming the facts bear out in Enhanced’s favor, Enhanced would have a strong argument that these broad restrictions are not necessary to achieve fairness and safety, and that less restrictive rules could do the job.
How this case plays out could matter well beyond swimming. If Enhanced succeeds, it could reduce barriers for controversial market entrants that challenge long-standing conventions in traditional industries dominated by a few firms. If World Aquatics and its co-defendants prevail, it could empower traditional governing bodies or dominant firms to set the boundaries of what controversial and disruptive competitors can accomplish in an industry.
