A manufacturer of flooring for sporting events has asked a Utah federal judge to toss an antitrust suit from several of its distributors, casting doubt on claims that its recent acquisition of a competing company is an anticompetitive power play.

Connor Sport Court International LLC, which sells flooring products under its Sport Court brand, told the court that the tie-up between its parent company Gerflor USA Inc. and competitor Snap Lock Industries Inc. is aboveboard, and that the distributors are improperly attempting to inflate simple contract disputes into a grand antitrust conspiracy.

But the complaint does not identify any antitrust harm, CSCI argued, saying that its framing of the changes in the sports flooring market since the transaction is muddled and imprecise.

"Plaintiffs complain solely about injuries to their own business, such as 'undercutting of bids,' loss in revenues, and erosion in the value of their business," CSCI said. "Indeed, contrary to the purpose of antitrust protections, plaintiffs seek relief for increased competition between CSCI and Snap."

In their suit, the distributors seized on instances where CSCI refused to lower its prices to meet those offered by Snap Lock, which they saw as evidence that the onetime competitors were now collaborating under the same corporate umbrella.

CSCI called those allegations "contradictory" and said that the companies were actually identifying procompetitive effects of Gerflor's arrangement with Snap Lock.

"Namely, they allege that the two previously unrelated companies are now engaged in joint product development efforts," CSCI told the court.

Sterling Brennan, a Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP attorney representing the distributors, told Law360 that his clients "believe that their claims are meritorious and they expect to continue to assert them and ultimately obtain relief from the court."

The suit filed last year by 16 flooring distributors said that, after acquiring Snap Lock in 2023, Gerflor discontinued its entry- and mid-level products and did not replace them with anything comparable, merely replacing them with products offered by Snap Lock. That and other subsequent activities have manipulated the sports flooring market, the suit claimed.

But the suit also fails to identify a specific "market" for sports flooring products, which is a foundational requirement for an antitrust action, CSCI said. Specifically, it noted that the different tiers of offerings of the companies splinter the distributors' antitrust arguments.

"The allegations of the complaint suggest that products in the 'sports flooring market' are not interchangeable, stating that CSCI offers 'premium' products while Snap offers a 'lower quality, less expensive alternative,'" CSCI said. "Therefore, alleging 'sports flooring' as a market does not allow the court to determine whether alleged anticompetitive conduct restrains trade."

The plaintiffs are represented by Sterling Brennan, Thomas Krzeminski and Lannie Rex Sears of Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP and Michael Smith of Fowler Law Firm PC.

CSCI is represented by Benjamin R. Dyer of Dyer Law Group PLLC, David B. Ritter and Paul Olszowka of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Mark Bettilyon and Peter M. de Jonge of Thorpe North & Western LLP.

The case is Custom Courts Inc. et al. v. Connor Sport Court International LLC et al., case number 2:25-cv-01048, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.