Boats Group antitrust case dismissed by US court

A federal judge in Florida has thrown out an antitrust lawsuit against Boats Group, the company behind major online boat marketplace platforms including Boat Trader, YachtWorld and boats.com, after ruling that the complaint did not sufficiently show unlawful anti-competitive behaviour.

The case was filed on 14 August 2025 by Brill Maritime Inc., which operates as Export Yacht Sales. The company argued that Miami-based Boats Group had used a series of practices to build and protect a dominant position in the US market for online boat listings and marketing services. According to the complaint, Boats Group controlled about 75 per cent of the sector and had relied on acquisitions, contract terms and pricing practices that, Brill Maritime said, limited competition and left brokers and dealers with few practical alternatives to its services.

Brill Maritime argued that Boats Group had “willfully acquired, maintained and expanded monopoly power in this market by engaging in exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct, including the serial acquisitions of its main competitors, unilateral price increases, restrictive contractual terms and practices that hinder entry and expansion by rival platforms.” The company also claimed that it “has been directly harmed by Boats Group’s conduct” because it “has been forced to pay supracompetitive prices for essential marketing services with effectively zero viable alternatives available.”

In the ruling, US District Judge Roy K. Altman accepted Brill Maritime’s factual allegations for the purpose of considering the motion, but said the claims did not meet the legal threshold required for the case to move forward.

The court accepted that Brill Maritime had put forward a plausible argument that a US market exists for online boat listing and marketing services, and that Boats Group may hold considerable market power within it. The judge also made clear that having a dominant position alone does not amount to a breach of antitrust law.

Altman wrote that “the mere acquisition of monopoly power isn’t illegal.” He added that the complaint did not establish that Boats Group’s acquisitions crossed legal lines rather than being the result of “business acumen.”

The court also rejected Brill Maritime’s arguments over listing agreements used by Boats Group. Altman found that the provisions highlighted in the complaint did not stop brokers or dealers from advertising vessels elsewhere. Instead, it was found, they addressed how the origin of listings could be described.

“The complaint fails to allege any facts to show that the terms are in any way anticompetitive or that they otherwise harm consumers,” the judge said.

Claims linked to pricing were dismissed as well. Brill Maritime had argued that sharp increases in charges pointed to anti-competitive conduct, but the court said pricing on its own was not enough to support that argument.

“Courts are in near-universal agreement that charging higher prices – even excessive prices – doesn’t violate the antitrust laws,” Altman wrote.

The lawsuit sought damages on behalf of a proposed class said to include thousands of brokers and dealers. It also aimed to introduce measures that Brill Maritime argued would restore competition within the market.

Judge Altman dismissed all five claims against Boats Group, including two federal claims under the Sherman Act and three claims under Florida law. The state-level claims were also dismissed without prejudice after the federal claims were removed from the case.

Revised filing may be planned

The ruling still leaves the door open for Brill Maritime to try again. The company has until 30 June 2026 to submit an amended complaint. Reuters reports that a lawyer representing Brill Maritime says a revised filing is planned.

Boats Group welcomed the outcome and said the decision backed the legitimacy of its business practices. The company said its position in the market reflected product development and service improvements rather than anti-competitive conduct.

“Our market position cannot be duplicated by shortcuts or meritless litigation,” says Patrick Kolek, CEO. “There is simply no substitute for the passion, integrity and hard work our team brings to the marine industry every day. While we remain entirely focused on delivering next-generation product innovation for our community of buyers and sellers, this ruling makes it clear that we will always vigorously and successfully defend our business against baseless claims.”

The case can be seen in full online.