Black Bear Sports accused in class-action lawsuit of defrauding parents

Black Bear Sports accused in class-action lawsuit of defrauding parents.

Key points

• Former Black Bear Sports CEO Murry Gunty took a limited number of questions on video from reporter Kenny Jacoby.
• Beyond the lawsuit, Black Bear faces another legal threat from the Michigan Attorney General's Office.
• "It's just a money grab from parents, " Karen Dahlberg O'Connell, the consumer protection attorney for Almeida Law Group who filed the case, informed USA TODAY.
• Go deeper: 4 takeaways from USA Today's investigation of Black Bear Sports Group.
• "The allegations in this lawsuit are entirely without merit, " remarked Doug Gansler, an attorney representing Black Bear, in an emailed statement.

Black Bear Sports accused in class-action lawsuit of defrauding parents. Kenny Jacoby USA TODAY. Former CEO Murry Gunty answers: Is Black Bear a hockey monopoly?

Former Black Bear Sports CEO Murry Gunty took a limited number of questions on video from reporter Kenny Jacoby. Is Black Bear a hockey monopoly?

Four hockey parents filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Black Bear Sports Group, alleging that the youth hockey behemoth misled families by requiring them to book rooms at specific hotels and inflated rates during their children's competitions.

In practice, the parents say they were charged "junk fees" and could usually find cheaper rates at the same hotels without using Black Bear's booking platform. According to But they, black Bear coerced them into paying steep room costs by threatening to disqualify their kids and teams from playing if they did not comply.

Notably, the lawsuit, filed Sept. 1 in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, alleges that Black Bear's "stay-to-play" hotel policies at tournaments and other events defrauded families of millions of dollars and unnecessarily drove up the cost to play.

"The allegations in this lawsuit are entirely without merit, " remarked Doug Gansler, an attorney representing Black Bear, in an emailed statement. "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 create clear that the organization receives rebates from participating hotels."

In practice, the lawsuit comes on the heels of a USA TODAY investigation in May. It discovered that Black Bear aggressively purchased up dozens of ice rinks in 11 states – including plenty of in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Connecticut – then leveraged that control to raise costs, force out longstanding community-based teams and replace them with expensive, for-profit alternatives.

"It's just a money grab from parents, " Karen Dahlberg O'Connell, the consumer protection attorney for Almeida Law Group who filed the case, informed USA TODAY. "People should be able to choose where they want to stay."

"Stay-to-play" rules have become increasingly commonplace in youth sports. They are one focus of the "Let Kids Play Act, " a federal bill that intends to end "vulture practices" in the youth sports industry. It generates an estimated $40 billion annually.

Black Bear is one of a number of private-equity firms and big-money investment groups that have consolidated enormous slices of the youth sports ecosystems for hockey, flag football, baseball, basketball, volleyball and cheerleading – further turning what were once community-based activities into profit vehicles for wealthy investors.

Along with rinks, Black Bear owns or operates hundreds of youth hockey teams, leagues, tournaments, showcases, a scorekeeping software and Black Bear TV, a live streaming service that bills families hundreds of dollars a year to watch their kids' games. Tens of thousands of kids participate in Black Bear's stay-to-play tournaments and other events each year.

Beyond the lawsuit, Black Bear faces another legal threat from the Michigan Attorney General's Office. It introduced an investigation into the business earlier this year for potentially anticompetitive business practices.

"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, " Gansler's statement remarked. "These policies are also used throughout other competitive youth sports for the same reasons."

For context, the lawsuit's plaintiffs – Gary Oliver, Brendan Kane, and Scott and Jennifer Wachterhauser – are parents of youth hockey players in Delaware, New York and New Jersey. Each has kids who have played in multiple Defender hockey tournaments, a Black Bear subsidiary brand.

Defender requires all teams based at least 60 or 75 miles from its events' host rinks to book rooms at specific hotels from which it receives kickbacks – even when players have family members they could stay with in the area or would prefer to commute, employ their own hotel points or book an AirBnb.

"All teams and participants are required to book their hotel accommodations through the tournament's official housing provider, " Defender's website notes. "Families are not to contact the hotel directly to book rooms for the event."

Defender's website adds there are "No exceptions" to those rules. As the lawsuit alleges, nevertheless, Black Bear on other parts of its website offers a "buyout fee" as an alternative to the requirements. The lawsuit notes Black Bear hid that fact to "deceptively induce" parents to reserve rooms at its preferred hotels through its booking platform.

As screenshots attached to the lawsuit show, the parent plaintiffs each paid higher room rates by booking through Defender than they could have paid by booking through Expedia, Hotels.com or the hotel's own website.

While providing little or nothing of value in return, additionally, Defender charged each of the parents unexplained fees when they created the reservations, the lawsuit states. Some of the fees Defender charged are listed on receipts as simply, "Non-refundable fee" or "Charged Now."

In practice, the lawsuit calls these "junk fees, " which the Federal Trade Commission describes as "unfair or deceptive fees that are charged for goods or services that have little or no added value to the consumer."

Regarding stay-to-play: 'They'll hold you over a barrel': How NHL team's execs milked youth hockey families for profit.

Among the counts listed against Black Bear are violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. The class of individuals the lawsuit seeks to cover extends beyond those states to potentially anyone whose child attended a Black Bear stay-to-play event in the last three to six years.

Black Bear refuted those allegations, saying policies such as the "buyout fee" do not 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, " Gansler's statement remarked. "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." Youth sports and major business.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit is not the first to take on stay-to-play practices in youth sports.

Varsity Brands, a private-equity backed firm that controls much of youth cheerleading, paid $82.5 million in 2024 to settle a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in 35 states who alleged, among other things, that Varsity forced them to purchase unnecessary hotel rooms at its competitions.

Dahlberg O'Connell, who filed the lawsuit against Black Bear, filed another class-action lawsuit in May against Team Travel Source, a major player in the stay-to-play space, over similar practices.

"What we need is for people to decide that they don't want to do stay-to-play and find ways to get around it, either by getting together and boycotting Black Bear tournaments or choosing another league, " she remarked. "It's hard for parents, but it's going to take collective action."

Notably, the lawsuit filed this month notes that throughout the nation, some families are feeling cash-strapped to keep up with the rising costs of youth sports.

"Parents are feeling the pinch, " the lawsuit notes, citing a recent study. "The average family paid nearly $1, 500 for one child's sports experiences in 2024, and the cost for families with more than one child participating in a sport was undoubtedly higher."

In practice, the dramatic growth in costs has led to a widening income gap in youth travel sports, the lawsuit stated, noting that "youth players from households earning $100, 000 or more per year are two times more likely to play travel sports than those from homes making under $50, 000." Share your feedback to support improve our site!

In short, black Bear Sports accused in class-action lawsuit of defrauding parents is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.