Lucky Strike snatched up local bowling alleys, raised prices to crazy heights in illegal monopoly, lawsuit alleges

Lucky Strike Entertainment is facing a new lawsuit accusing it of operating an illegal monopoly of bowling centers across the country – allegedly jacking up prices, pushing alcohol and gambling and tarnishing a cherished American pastime.The group of 11 plaintiffs, who are longtime bowlers from around the country, claim the “Wall Street goliath” has been “gobbling up its competitors through unlawful acquisitions,” according to the class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday in Washington federal court.Bowlero Corp, which owns Lucky Strike, has driven the cost of bowling higher for millions of customers at its more than 350 locations across North America – as much as tripling the price to bowl at some alleys in recent years, the suit alleged.The lawsuit accused Lucky Strike of running a “mousetrap” business designed to “squeeze as much money as possible out of hard-working families once they are in the door,” including through the use of algorithmic dynamic pricing.Lucky Strike centers often include bowling alleys, arcade games, pool tables and full bars, opening in the afternoon and closing late at night, with exact hours depending on the location.The Lucky Strike Times Square location – which turns 21+ after 9 p.m.on the weekends – was charging $156.47 for four guests to rent a lane for two hours on Friday.

After 4 p.m., that price shot up to $270.66 – not counting the cost of food, drinks and other games.“This Court has the power to preserve the century-long tradition of operating bowling centers in this country as a fair and honest line of business providing all Americans, regardless of age or socioeconomic status, the opportunity to gather and engage in a national pastime at fair prices,” the lawsuit said.A spokesperson for Lucky Strike denied the claims in the lawsuit, saying the company is “confident in our conduct” and planning to defend itself against the case.“This lawsuit is a meritless attempt by a startup plaintiffs’ firm ...