Bowlers sue Lucky Strike, allege monopoly pricing and shrinking experiences

11 bowlers from several states have taken Lucky Strike Entertainment to federal court, saying the company’s rapid expansion helped turn a night out at the lanes into a more expensive and less local experience.

The proposed class-action complaint was filed May 6, 2026, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle by Benjamin Doehr, Zach Soliz, Mitchel Feuer, Kevin Howard, Andre Howard, Michael Cordero, Ed McDonald, Theodore Harkness, Tim Kelly, Maor Kramer and Casey Goodman. The case, Doehr et al. v. Lucky Strike Entertainment Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-01535, names Lucky Strike Entertainment Corporation, AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. and Lucky Strike Entertainment LLC as defendants. The plaintiffs want class-action status for thousands of other bowlers, along with damages, unwinding of acquisitions and an injunction against future purchases in bowling and related markets.

At the center of the suit is Lucky Strike’s rise. The company, formerly Bowlero Corp., says it has more than 360 locations across North America, and company materials show it grew from just six U.S. centers in 2012 to nearly 350 bowling locations by 2026 through acquisitions of independent alleys and major chains, including AMF and Brunswick. One report says Lucky Strike controls about 35% of U.S. bowling revenue, a share the plaintiffs say gives it monopoly power over local pricing and customer experience.

The complaint argues that power has shown up where customers feel it most: at the counter, on the lane and in the food line. Plaintiffs say some Lucky Strike locations have seen prices for bowling, food, drinks and rentals climb sharply, with some allegations saying prices tripled in recent years. They also say service and lane quality have worsened as league events were displaced for corporate use, shrinking the role of traditional bowling leagues and making the centers less accessible to regular players.

The case arrives in a broader antitrust climate in which the Justice Department says federal competition laws are meant to stop mergers and conduct that deprive consumers of the benefits of competition. For bowlers, the suit frames a familiar question in a local setting: whether a wave of consolidation in entertainment has left fewer alternatives, higher tabs and a thinner experience from Seattle to cities across the country.