Altenar Seeks to Prevent Sportradar from Moving US Dispute to Swiss Arbitration

Altenar has requested that a United States federal court in New Jersey prevent Sportradar from transferring their current legal dispute to private arbitration in Switzerland. Altenar filed a detailed Memorandum in Opposition on 25 August, responding directly to Sportradar’s 14 August motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The disagreement centres on Altenar’s accusation that Sportradar engages in monopolistic conduct regarding sports data provision, allegedly violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Details of the US Legal Dispute

The underlying conflict began earlier in 2026 when Altenar accused Sportradar of restricting Altenar’s ability to enter the US sports betting market through a series of exclusive data arrangements. Altenar’s legal team claims Sportradar holds exclusive contracts for US sports data with the Major League Baseball (MLB) and the National Basketball Association (NBA), which prevents Altenar from accessing critical datasets necessary for US market launch. This, Altenar argues, constitutes an anticompetitive barrier under federal law.

In the Memorandum in Opposition, Altenar quantified its efforts and financial investment, stating it expended nearly $2 million on US market entry attempts, including participating in 19 expos, engaging with 41 companies, and performing 20 product demonstrations. Altenar contends that it has been unable to secure a New Jersey supplier licence absent a commercial deal with a sportsbook, yet cannot finalise such commercial terms without first obtaining access to Sportradar’s data feeds.

Arbitration Clause and Jurisdictional Arguments

The dispute references a now-expired 2021 Master Partner Agreement (MPA) which previously enabled Altenar to obtain Sportradar data outside the US market. While the MPA contains an arbitration clause specifying arbitration in Switzerland, Altenar’s attorneys argue that this clause only covers the agreement’s own provisions. They maintain that the broader US-focused dispute falls outside the MPA’s scope and, therefore, must be resolved in a US courtroom.

“Sportradar should not be allowed to invoke an arbitration clause to shield itself from United States-based claims when it has expressly disclaimed any connection between the underlying agreement and the United States.” — Altenar Memorandum in Opposition

Altenar further asserts that while it has initiated Swiss arbitration regarding issues squarely within the MPA, the alleged monopolistic conduct relating to the US market, and specifically New Jersey, should remain under the jurisdiction of US federal courts.

Motions Filed and Public Statements

Sportradar filed its motion on 14 August 2026, seeking to pause court proceedings and compel arbitration based on the MPA’s Swiss-based clause. Altenar’s 25 August response formally requests that the New Jersey court reject this motion, enabling US litigation of the Sherman Act issues. According to Altenar’s spokesperson:

“Sportradar’s global headquarters are in Switzerland; it feels safe there. Its motion to send this case to confidential Swiss arbitration is a transparent attempt to shield itself from US justice and public scrutiny. Altenar looks forward to its day in court.”

Sportradar, in line with legal protocol, declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

Commercial Impact and Next Steps

Altenar’s filings highlight the commercial complexity for sports betting suppliers entering regulated US states such as New Jersey. Without access to data from Sportradar’s exclusive league deals, Altenar claims it cannot fulfill New Jersey’s licensing requirements, which in turn blocks commercial partnerships and revenue opportunities in the US.

Court records show this dispute is ongoing, and no hearings on the jurisdictional question have yet been scheduled. The outcome will clarify how arbitration clauses in global B2B agreements apply to US-based antitrust claims, and may set a precedent for future supplier conflicts in the American market.

Broader Regulatory Context

The dispute forms part of a wider regulatory conversation about alleged monopolisation and fair competition within US sports data supply. These legal arguments sit alongside broader trends that regulators, operators, and suppliers in the regulation space must monitor closely, particularly as more states consider their own requirements for supplier licensing and data integrity.