A Miami boat brokerage alleges yacht buyers are being boxed in and priced up.
In a new lawsuit, it accuses the Miami-based owner behind some of the leading online platforms for buying and selling boats and yachts of holding an illegal monopoly in the US marine vessel market.
The proposed class action antitrust lawsuit, filed in a Florida federal court late last week by the local boat brokerage, alleges that Boats Group has engaged in strong-arm tactics to choke competition and has used its market power to jack up prices on brokers and dealers.
Boats Group, which operates the platforms Boat Trader, YachtWorld, and boats.com, “has willfully maintained and expanded its monopoly power through exclusionary practices rather than competition on the merits,” the lawsuit alleges.
“This conduct has enabled Boats Group to preserve its monopoly power not through superior products or services, but through exclusionary tactics that suppress competition, reduce entry and innovation, and harm sellers and consumers,” the lawsuit says.
Representatives for Boats Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday from Business Insider. Permira, the global private equity firm that owns Boats Group, declined to comment. (Permira is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit).
The lawsuit, filed by Brill Maritime Inc., which does business as Export Yacht Sales, seeks to “restore competitive conditions” in the boat market and recover damages for any US individuals or businesses allegedly harmed as a result of Boat Group’s “anticompetitive conduct.” The proposed class is estimated to be thousands of members, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit says that Boats Group publicly claims to control about 75% of the global market for online marine vessel listing and marketing services and that its share of the US market is believed to be similarly high.
The company’s website says its platforms attract more than 65 million annual visitors, “giving sellers unmatched exposure to serious boat buyers.”
Boats Group’s subscription agreements with sellers, the lawsuit says, “contain exclusive dealing provisions that either prohibit or strongly discourage sellers, particularly brokers and dealers, from listing their inventory on competing platforms.”
Related stories
Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know
Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know
Through subscriptions, boat sellers pay Boats Group to have their vessel inventory listed and marketed to a large swath of prospective buyers, the lawsuit says.
Export Yacht Sales says in the lawsuit that it purchases these subscriptions with Boats Group and that it has been forced to pay “supracompetitive prices for essential marketing services, with effectively zero viable alternatives available.”
The Miami brokerage says in the lawsuit that its combined monthly cost of listing on Boat Trader and YachtWorld skyrocketed by more than 400% between 2014 and 2024, jumping from $1,004 to $5,128. The plaintiff was charged $2,900 a month by Boat Trader alone in 2025, the lawsuit adds.
“Boats Group’s exclusionary behavior has suppressed competition, harmed sellers and brokerages, and distorted the structure and dynamics of the online boat sales marketplace,” the lawsuit says.
As a result, the lawsuit says, consumers are met with fewer options and higher prices for their boating needs.
“This dominance has enabled Boats Group’s predatory conduct to persist over time, allowing it to impose supracompetitive prices for subscription-based listing and marketing services without losing significant business to rivals, restrict sellers’ ability to switch to alternative services, and foreclose entry and expansion by rival platforms,” the lawsuit alleges.
Attorneys for Export Yacht Sales told Business Insider in a statement that the lawsuit “highlights the severe impact that Boats Group’s anticompetitive conduct has had on this industry.”
“By monopolizing the market for online boat listing services, Boats Group has been able to impose steep and sustained price increases, forcing brokers to pay inflated subscription fees without viable alternatives,” the lawyers said.
