A PYMNTS Company

Federal Lawsuit Targets Alleged Price Fixing in Archery Industry

By  |  June 8, 2025

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court is leveling serious allegations against major players in the archery industry, accusing them of colluding to artificially inflate the prices of archery equipment through coordinated pricing strategies.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Filed on May 30 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the lawsuit names several prominent companies, including Bass Pro Shops and leading bow manufacturers like Mathews and Hoyt, as well as the Archery Trade Association (ATA). According to a statement in the 63-page court filing, these entities are alleged to have conspired “to fix the prices of — and eliminate price discounting and competition for — archery products.”

    At the center of the lawsuit is the widespread use of Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) policies, which restrict how low dealers can advertise certain products for sale. Per the lawsuit, these policies have been used not just as a marketing tool but as a coordinated effort to stifle competition and maintain elevated prices on high-end archery gear, particularly compound bows.

    Industry proponents argue MAP policies serve a different purpose. According to a statement from industry insiders, these pricing agreements are intended to support small, independently owned bow shops that rely on in-person service and consultation to differentiate themselves from large online retailers. By enforcing MAP, manufacturers can ensure that local shops aren’t undercut by e-commerce giants that lack the in-store services many customers value.

    However, the plaintiffs claim that the ATA led a “campaign to artificially raise prices through MAP policies,” thereby creating a system in which price competition was virtually eliminated. The lawsuit points out that consumers are effectively left with no alternative but to pay full price for premium archery products, as leading brands like Mathews, Hoyt, and Bowtech do not allow online sales of their flagship models. Customers must visit authorized dealers in person and are rarely able to find discounts due to MAP enforcement.

    Per the filing, any retailer that fails to comply with these pricing policies risks losing access to stock from major manufacturers, a practice the plaintiffs argue contributes to a monopolistic environment.

    The legal challenge could have significant implications for how archery equipment is sold in the U.S., particularly as the sport continues to grow in popularity.

    Source: OutDoorLife