Sportradar Group AG
Defendant Sportradar Group AG (“Sportradar” or the “Company”) partners with sports leagues worldwide (such as the NBA, MLB, the NHL, the PGA Tour, and FIFA) to facilitate live data collection and analysis in order to supply pre-match and live data and odds to operators of sportsbooks across the world. Additionally, Sportradar engages in technology-enabled fraud monitoring for its sports-league partners and distributes audiovisual streams to its gambling operator clients. This securities fraud class action arises out of the concealment of Sportradar’s business dealings with unlicensed, sanctioned, and criminal sportsbook operators.
On October 14, 2026, Arkansas Public Employees’ Retirement System and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (“Plaintiff”) filed a 128-page Amended Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants Sportradar, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Carsten Koerl, and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) Craig Felenstein (together, “Defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants made representations during the Class Period that the Company was committed to “an integrity-driven environment for all involved,” that Sportradar made “good faith efforts to comply with all local requirements,” and that the Company maintained a robust, “intensive,” and “rigid” Know-Your-Customer (“KYC”) process to ensure it “only work[ed] with licensed operators.” These representations were underscored by Defendant Koerl’s statement in an April 1, 2025 CNBC interview that Sportradar was like “the SEC or the FBI” of the gambling industry, due to its ability to police fraudulent and illicit activity.
Furthermore, in April of 2025, Sportradar conducted a secondary public offering. Pursuant to this event, the Company’s registration statement and prospectus supplement contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. These statements included that Sportradar had “obtained necessary licenses, authorizations, findings of suitability, registrations, permits and approvals necessary for [its] current operations.”
However, unknown to investors during the Class Period, Sportradar’s purported commitment to integrity and the Company’s touted KYC procedures were nothing more than talking points. In truth, far from placing “integrity, transparency and professionalism at the heart” of its business, Sportradar instead built a business out of servicing unlicensed, sanctioned, and criminal operators. The Company sought to monetize the business of known illegal operators who targeted black markets. The Company routinely made its data and services available to entities that lacked the licenses necessary to operate sportsbooks in the jurisdictions where they operated. Sportradar’s business dealings also violated international sanctions against Russia and Iran.
On April 22, 2026, the market research firms Muddy Waters Research (“Muddy Waters”) and Callisto Research (“Callisto”) separately published independent investigative reports revealing that Sportradar intentionally derived a material portion of its revenues from a network of black-market gambling partners. Then, on August 3, 2026, Sportradar reported disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2026. The failure to meet its projections and the reduction in future guidance reflected, at least in part, the Company’s taking steps to scale back its exposure to at least some of the clients identified by Muddy Waters and Callisto. These disclosures both caused significant drops in Sportradar’s stock price.
Following the filing of the Complaint, Defendants must reply by November 14, 2026 with a pre-motion letter identifying the grounds for a prospective motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s response to that letter will be due within five days of receipt. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to hold a pre-motion conference on the matter.