A group of parents has filed a class action lawsuit in Delaware federal court against Black Bear Sports Group, alleging the youth hockey company engaged in “deceptive, unconscionable, and unfair” stay-to-play practices in connection with tournaments it runs.
Almeida Law Group — which is leading the federal STP lawsuit against Team Travel Source — is also representing the plaintiffs in the BBSG case. It is joined by Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP (also involved in the TTS case) and DeLeeuw Law LLC.
The plaintiffs allege Black Bear and its competition brands — Defender Hockey Tournaments, Tier 1 Hockey Federation and National Girls Hockey League — told parents there are no exceptions to its stay-to-play policy, but did not disclose buyout options or that only 80% of a team’s players must comply with the policy.
The lawsuit also alleges the policy forced parents to pay inflated hotel rates and junk fees. It makes many of the same arguments as the Team Travel Source lawsuit, but is different as it targets the operator that set the policy, rather than the housing firm that facilitates it.
“We are bringing a case against Black Bear because there are layers of deception in these situations,” Almeida partner and attorney Karen Dahlberg O’Connell told Buying Sandlot.
“People don't even know that they're dealing with Black Bear. And I believe that's by design, because people don't want to deal with Black Bear. … I think at the end of the day, it just all comes down to deception and consumers’ feelings that they have no choice because they've been lied to and told that their kid is not going to be able to participate if they don't do what they're told and stay to play. What we're trying to do is stop Black Bear from using a child's roster spot as leverage over a parent’s credit card.”
Black Bear is being represented by former Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, a partner at Greenberg Traurig. He provided this statement to Buying Sandlot:
“The allegations in this lawsuit are entirely without merit. There is no coercion or coverup, and plaintiffs are either misinformed or intentionally distorting the facts. Stay-to-play policies are clearly laid out on the league and tournament websites, and the contracts parents sign make clear that the organization receives rebates from participating hotels. Stay-to-play policies are used throughout competitive youth hockey and by USA Hockey, the sport's national governing board, to ensure adequate hotel rooms for participating teams and to create a better overall event experience for players. These policies are also used throughout other competitive youth sports for the same reasons. Plaintiffs are incorrectly citing a ‘buy-out’ policy and ‘80% participation’ rule for teams, neither of which exist. Exemptions are made on a case-by-case basis for very specific circumstances such as when room blocks are no longer available or if a team has a special need that a hotel can't accommodate. We will vigorously defend these policies -- which are nearly identical to USA Hockey and other competitive sports -- and expect to prevail against the three plaintiffs that brought this case.”
We hope to have more from Gansler next week, so stay tuned.
A few quick notes:
1) The spirit of the lawsuits is identical, but we now have the same attorneys attacking stay-to-play from opposite angles — the housing firm with Team Travel Source and the operator with Black Bear Sports Group. It will be interesting to see how they unfold on parallel tracks and whether they eventually intersect.
A smaller STP lawsuit against an operator was recently tossed, but that could be amended and re-filed at some point.
2) The alleged buyout option at issue could be something to watch. Putting aside the reasonable arguments that can be made for STP — matters of higher/lower rates and junk fees can be murky. But the buyout allegation is more black and white.
As one industry voice unconnected to these cases told me: Just because one family finds a cheaper rate on Expedia does not mean the other dozen families could secure the same rate, or would not be paying more without the policy.
3) The complaint mentions the Let Kids Play Act and media coverage of Black Bear and founder Murry Gunty, who is referred to as a “private equity veteran.” But the lawsuit stops short of alleging BBSG is owned by PE — which it denies — and does not mention Gunty’s Blackstreet Capital Holdings, which has an ownership stake in Black Bear according to federal court records. The complaint also references the Michigan Attorney General’s reported antitrust investigation into BBSG.
4) The plaintiffs are from Delaware, New Jersey and New York. The lawsuit aims to build the national class off Delaware’s consumer fraud laws with subclasses in the other states. Almeida has asked other potential plaintiffs to come forward, but said it is primarily looking for residents of Delaware and Massachusetts. Black Bear does not own rinks in Massachusetts, but teams from the state do compete on its platforms.
Venue could become a factor. Black Bear is incorporated in Delaware and has hockey operations in the state. But it is headquartered in Florida, although it does not have hockey operations there.
5) A quick update on the TTS case — the housing firm filed a motion to dismiss at the end of August and the plaintiffs now have until Sept. 30 to respond.
Follow on LinkedIn: Kyle Scott, James Kratch, Kyle Pagan