Court Rules Toggenburg Mountain Violated Anti-Trust Laws, Created a Ski-Market Monopoly

A New York judge has ruled that Intermountain Management, a company that owns multiple ski resorts in Central New York, violated state antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive practices following its acquisition of Toggenburg Mountain. The ruling comes after a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused the company of stifling competition and creating a monopoly in the Syracuse-area ski market.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2022, alleged that Intermountain’s purchase and subsequent closure of Toggenburg Mountain left local skiers with fewer choices, leading to higher prices and more crowded slopes at the company’s remaining resorts, Labrador and Song Mountains. The suit also challenged a non-competition agreement that barred Toggenburg’s former owners from opening a competing ski business or hiring Intermountain employees within a 30-mile radius for five years.

In his decision, Judge Robert E. Antonacci II ruled that Intermountain’s actions violated New York’s antitrust law by reducing consumer options and unfairly restricting competition. The court found that the company’s purchase of Toggenburg was intended to eliminate competition and drive up profits, while the "no-poach" agreement lacked legitimate business justification.

The ruling marks a significant victory for the Attorney General’s Office, which argued that the elimination of a major ski resort negatively impacted both consumers and workers. "Syracuse skiing families and workers long benefited from competition among their local ski mountains," said Attorney General James in a statement following the decision. "Intermountain paid a premium price to destroy competition, knowing it could raise prices and profit more as a monopoly."

The case detailed how Intermountain’s partners, Peter Harris and Richard Sykes, allegedly sought to acquire Toggenburg over several years, including approaching its former owner, John Meier, through third parties before finalizing the purchase. Following the acquisition, Intermountain reportedly announced plans to prevent future buyers from reopening the mountain as a ski resort.

With the judge granting the state’s motion for summary judgment, the next phase of the case will focus on determining remedies for Intermountain’s anticompetitive conduct. Further proceedings will establish what actions the company may be required to take as a result of the ruling.

The case was handled by members of the Attorney General’s Antitrust Bureau, with legal and data analysis support from the Research and Analytics Department.