A lawsuit seeking $800 million in damages filed by Enhanced Games has been dismissed by a federal judge in the United States. The lawsuit alleged that World Aquatics, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and USA Swimming conspired to discourage swimmers and athletes from participating in Enhanced Games’ new competition series.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled against Enhanced Games in November, providing them with a 30-day window to address the court’s concerns and refile the case. However, the deadline passed, as confirmed by a recent news release from WADA.
WADA expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating that it supports their firm stance on the matter. A source familiar with Enhanced Games’ legal actions revealed to The Associated Press that the company opted not to refile the lawsuit due to recent successes in signing swimmers and their ongoing public offering aiming to raise approximately $200 million.
Enhanced Games recently announced the participation of five more swimmers in their upcoming event scheduled for May, where athletes will compete for a $250,000 prize. The event has attracted a diverse field of around a dozen competitors, including notable Olympic medalists such as James Magnussen, Ben Proud, and Cody Miller. Sprinter Fred Kerley is among the top names set to participate in the event, which will enforce strict medical supervision while not imposing the same drug restrictions as Olympic sports.
The lawsuit revolved around a regulation introduced by World Aquatics earlier this year, threatening to ban athletes participating in events that endorse scientific advancements or practices involving prohibited substances or methods. WADA and USA Swimming were implicated in the lawsuit for supporting this regulation.
Judge Furman highlighted a key flaw in the case, noting that Enhanced Games failed to demonstrate that World Aquatics held monopoly power in the relevant markets, particularly among elite athletes seeking alternative drug-testing standards. Although Enhanced Games claimed to possess information to address this deficiency, their failure to respond within the specified timeframe led to the closure of the case.