Lucky Strike Entertainment Hit With Bowling Alley Monopoly Suit

Private equity-backed Lucky Strike Entertainment Corp. was sued in federal court by consumers who allege the company unlawfully acquired bowling centers across the US to gain monopoly power and drive up prices, making the sport no longer an affordable pastime for families and leagues.

The company’s purchases of AMF Bowling Centers, Brunswick Corp., and the Professional Bowlers Association were part of a “roll up” scheme to gobble up independent bowling alleys and extract discriminatory terms from suppliers for food, beverages, and arcade machines, according to a proposed class action filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The company operates the Bowlero and Lucky Strike bowling brands.

A spokesperson for Lucky Strike said in a statement that the suit is a “meritless attempt by a startup plaintiffs’ firm to generate headlines at the expense of a company that has spent more than three decades expanding opportunities for the sport of bowling and the communities we serve.”

Private equity firm Atairos is a controlling owner of Lucky Strike.

“In Bowlero’s quest to become the ‘Starbucks’ of bowling,” each independent operator presented a consolidation opportunity to drive growth, the plaintiffs allege. “Bowlero’s larger rivals were targets of this consolidation strategy too: all told it went from operating six centers in the United States in 2012 to nearly 350 in 2026 by buying up independent operators and large chains alike.”

Several plaintiffs complained of higher prices and poor quality that resulted from Lucky Strike’s dominance. One plaintiff, Casey Goodman, alleged he has faced a consistent increase in league fees, higher prices for food, and worsened quality at Bowlero centers, including “lanes breaking down, balls damaged by improperly maintained lanes, and often dirty facilities.”

Another plaintiff, Michael Cordero, alleges he “can no longer afford to bowl each week with his family and friends—instead, he now bowls once every four or five months.”

Others complained of “imposing loud music, blacklights, and massive video boards that make it difficult to bowl and converse with family, friends, or competing bowlers.”

The plaintiffs seek relief under laws including Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which grants private individuals the right to challenge anticompetitive acquisitions, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits attempts to monopolize.

The plaintiff are represented by Simonsen Sussman LLP.

The case is Doehr v. Lucky Strike Ent. Corp., W.D. Wash., No. 2:26-cv-01535, complaint 5/6/26.