A new federal lawsuit claims that one company’s dominance in the sports video analysis industry is stifling competition, raising prices, and limiting choices for high school and college athletic programs across the United States. The complaint was filed by QwikCut, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 5, 2026, naming Agile Sports Technologies, Inc., which does business as Hudl, as the defendant.
According to court documents, QwikCut alleges that Hudl controls approximately 99% of the U.S. high school market for software and services used to capture, store, analyze, and exchange sports videos. The complaint states that this near-total market share extends to most college athletic programs outside Division I schools. QwikCut argues that Hudl’s position is not due to superior products or services but rather a series of acquisitions and business practices designed to eliminate competition.
The filing outlines how Hudl acquired its main competitors—Digital Sports Video in 2011 and APEX Sports Software in 2012—effectively consolidating control over the majority of high school and college customers. The document cites internal statements from Hudl leadership emphasizing a strategy focused on market domination: “the desire to dominate guides every decision.”
Beyond acquisitions, QwikCut claims that Hudl has imposed technological barriers making it difficult or impossible for teams using rival platforms to access essential game footage or participate in league-wide film exchanges. The complaint describes exclusive partnerships with state and collegiate athletic associations requiring member schools to use Hudl’s platform for sharing game film. It also highlights exclusive contracts with major coaching clinics such as Glazier Clinics and Nike Coach of the Year Football Clinics as further evidence of efforts to exclude competitors.
QwikCut alleges that these practices force schools into a catch-22: leaving Hudl means losing access to critical league pools or facing cumbersome manual processes for exchanging game film with other teams. As described in the filing: “a team that leaves Hudl loses access to critical film from their conference—the film they need to compete.” The document details an example involving West De Pere High School in Wisconsin, which after switching from Hudl to QwikCut was denied access to its conference’s league pool unless it paid for a separate Hudl subscription.
The lawsuit also accuses Hudl of refusing to provide Application Programming Interface (API) access that would allow seamless cross-platform exchanges—a practice common in other industries such as banking or healthcare. QwikCut asserts that API access could enable third-party developers or leagues themselves to create interoperable solutions benefiting all users. According to the complaint: “Hudl has refused to provide its users…or independent third-party developers the information and protocols they would need to create league exchanges that would operate across platforms.”
Further allegations include exclusionary pricing strategies—such as charging higher total subscription prices when customers seek fewer sports—and bundling products in ways intended to lock schools into using only Hudl’s services across all sports programs. The complaint argues there is no procompetitive justification for these pricing models.
QwikCut maintains it offers comparable or superior services at lower prices but has been unable to gain meaningful market share due to what it describes as anticompetitive conduct by Hudl. The company points specifically to its experience partnering with the New Jersey Super Football Conference during the 2023-24 season; despite initial interest from member schools seeking lower costs and better service, most returned to Hudl because of alleged monopolistic barriers.
The legal action seeks relief under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act as well as Section 2 of the Sherman Act. QwikCut requests treble damages for injuries sustained; recovery of legal costs including attorneys’ fees; injunctive relief prohibiting further anticompetitive conduct; and any additional remedies available under federal law.
Attorneys representing QwikCut are not named within this portion of the court filing. No judge name is explicitly stated in the provided document excerpt. The case is identified as Case No.: 2:26-cv-02334.
Source: 226cv02334_Qwikcut_LLC_v_Agile_Sports_Technologies_Inc_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf