Strava Sues Garmin Lawsuit, Inside the Shocking Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Strava filed a federal lawsuit against Garmin on September 30, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging patent infringement related to GPS segments and heatmap technologies. The fitness platform is demanding that Garmin stop selling nearly all of its devices that use these contested features.
Here’s something that’ll blow your mind: the fitness app you use to track your morning run just sued one of the world’s biggest GPS device manufacturers. And we’re not talking about a minor legal spat—Strava is seeking a permanent injunction to stop Garmin from selling any device that includes Segments or heatmap-style functionality, which would cover pretty much the entire lineup of Garmin fitness and cycling gear.
This lawsuit has sent shockwaves through the fitness technology industry, and if you’re using either platform, you need to understand what’s happening.
What’s Really Going On? The Core of Strava’s Patent Infringement Claims
Let’s cut through the legal jargon and get to what matters.
Strava alleges that Garmin infringed on its patents for two features related to tracking exercise routes: segments and heatmaps. The company also claims that Garmin violated a Master Cooperation Agreement by developing its own heat map feature.
Think of it this way: imagine you invented a revolutionary way to compare running times on specific routes. You patented it. Then your business partner, who had access to your data, creates an almost identical feature. That’s essentially what Strava is claiming happened here.
Table of Contents
The Patents
The lawsuit centers on patents 9,116,922, 9,297,651 (and ancillary patent 9,778,053), which cover matching GPS segments to accompanying routes along with users creating map activity preferences.
Here’s what these patents actually protect under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Patentable Subject Matter):
Patent No. 8,922,593 (The Segments Patent)
Strava’s Segment patent was filed in 2011 and granted in 2015. The patent effectively covers GPS segments with time-based performance comparisons.
This patent protects the fundamental technology that lets you:
- Define specific route segments (like “that brutal hill climb”)
- Automatically detect when you’re on that segment
- Compare your performance to others who’ve tackled it
- Get real-time feedback during your activity
Patent No. 9,116,922 (The Heatmap Patent)
This patent relates to generating user preference activity maps, according to the complaint, which accuses Garmin of using those technologies in products like Garmin Connect web and mobile apps and Garmin fitness devices.
The heatmap patent covers technology that:
- Aggregates activity data from multiple users
- Creates visual representations of popular routes
- Shows “heat” intensity based on user traffic
- Helps athletes discover new training routes
The Legal Framework: Understanding Patent Infringement Under U.S. Law
Before we dive deeper, let’s understand the legal codes that govern this case.
Key Legal Provisions in Play
35 U.S.C. § 271(a) – Direct Patent Infringement
This is the big one. The statute reads: “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States… infringes the patent.”
Strava must prove that Garmin’s features literally meet every element of their patent claims (literal infringement) or are substantially equivalent (doctrine of equivalents).
35 U.S.C. § 283 – Injunctive Relief
According to the complaint, “Monetary relief alone is inadequate. Garmin’s continued infringement of the ‘922 Patent causes irreparable harm to Strava, including loss of network effects, erosion of platform differentiation and goodwill, and brand loyalty that cannot be fully measured or compensated in money.”
This is why Strava wants Garmin to stop selling devices entirely, not just pay damages.
35 U.S.C. § 284 – Damages for Infringement
If Strava wins, they could recover:
- Lost profits from the infringement
- A reasonable royalty for unauthorized use
- Enhanced damages (up to treble damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284)
Contract Law: Breach of Master Cooperation Agreement
Beyond patent law, Strava claims that Garmin broke a Master Cooperation Agreement between the two companies from 2015, in order to develop their Garmin Segments functionality.
This invokes:
- State contract law principles (likely Colorado law since the case is filed there)
- Breach of contract damages under common law
- Potential breach of fiduciary duty claims
The Timeline: How This Lawsuit Came to Be
Understanding the chronology helps explain why tensions exploded in 2025.
The Early Partnership Years (2011-2014)
2011: Strava files for the Segments patent
2014: Garmin introduced its own Segments in 2014 on its Edge 1000 bike computer, and expanded the feature to its other devices over the remainder of the year.
Already, there’s a problem. Strava’s patent was still pending when Garmin launched segments.
2015: Two critical events:
- Strava’s Segments patent is granted
- A Master Cooperation Agreement is signed between the two companies
This agreement likely governed data sharing and feature development—but the exact terms remain sealed in court documents.
The Breaking Point (2024-2025)
Late 2024: Strava introduced API changes that disrupted the relationship between the companies
These API changes restricted how third parties (including Garmin) could access and display Strava data.
June-July 2025: Strava sent Garmin formal notices of infringement
Under patent law, these notices are crucial. They put Garmin on formal notice that continued use could constitute willful infringement, opening the door to enhanced damages.
September 30, 2025: The complaint was filed by Denver-based lawyer Joel Sayres on behalf of Strava
The lawsuit lands in federal court, shocking both companies’ user bases.
What Each Side Is Arguing: The Legal Battle Lines
Strava’s Core Arguments
1. Direct Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
Strava argues that Garmin’s segment and heatmap features literally infringe or are substantially equivalent to their patented technologies.
The key here is claim-by-claim analysis. Strava must show that Garmin’s implementation meets every limitation of at least one claim in their patents.
2. Willful Infringement
By sending formal notices of infringement in June and July 2025, Strava established that Garmin had knowledge of the patents. Continued use after this notice could support a finding of willful infringement.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, willful infringement can result in damages up to three times the actual damages—a massive financial risk for Garmin.
3. Irreparable Harm Requiring Injunctive Relief
Strava claims that monetary damages cannot adequately compensate for “loss of network effects, erosion of platform differentiation and goodwill, and brand loyalty.”
This is critical for getting an injunction. Under the eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (547 U.S. 388) standard, Strava must prove:
- Irreparable injury
- Inadequacy of legal remedies
- Balance of hardships favors them
- Public interest supports an injunction
4. Breach of Contract
The Master Cooperation Agreement likely contained provisions about:
- Data usage restrictions
- Feature development limitations
- Confidentiality obligations
- Dispute resolution procedures
Garmin’s Likely Defenses (Based on Typical Patent Defense Strategies)
While Garmin hasn’t fully responded yet, typical defenses in cases like this include:
1. Patent Invalidity (35 U.S.C. § 282)
Garmin could argue Strava’s patents are:
- Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (someone skilled in GPS technology could have easily come up with these ideas)
- Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (prior art existed before Strava’s patent)
- Improper subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (abstract ideas not eligible for patenting)
2. Non-Infringement
Garmin will argue their implementation differs materially from Strava’s patent claims. They’ll point to technical differences in:
- Data processing algorithms
- User interface implementations
- Backend architecture
- Calculation methodologies
3. License Defense
The Master Cooperation Agreement might have included implied or express licenses to use certain technologies.
4. Patent Exhaustion and First Sale Doctrine
If Garmin properly licensed or purchased rights to underlying technologies, they may have exhausted Strava’s patent rights.
5. Laches and Estoppel
Garmin launched segments in 2014, and Strava waited until 2025 to sue. Garmin could argue Strava’s delay prejudiced them by allowing investment in infringing technology.
The Business Context: Why This Matters Beyond Legal Theory
Let’s talk about what’s really at stake here beyond patent claims and legal codes.
The Network Effects Argument
Strava isn’t just protecting technology—they’re protecting their entire business model.
Strava specifically cited “loss of network effects” as irreparable harm.
Here’s why that matters: Strava’s value isn’t just in the app—it’s in having millions of athletes using it. When Garmin devices let users compete on segments without ever visiting Strava, they’re siphoning off the social network that makes Strava valuable.
Think about it: if you can compare your times with friends directly on your Garmin watch, why open the Strava app?
The Financial Implications
For Garmin:
An injunction would affect “pretty much the entire lineup of Garmin fitness and cycling gear.”
We’re talking about:
- Edge cycling computers (entire lineup)
- Forerunner watches
- Fenix series
- Vivoactive series
- The Garmin Connect platform
A complete sales stoppage could cost Garmin hundreds of millions in quarterly revenue.
For Strava:
The company operates on a freemium model. Premium subscriptions cost $11.99/month or $79.99/year. If Garmin users don’t need Strava anymore, that’s:
- Lost subscription revenue
- Reduced network effects
- Decreased platform value
- Lower acquisition prospects
The Industry Ripple Effects
This lawsuit could reshape the entire fitness technology ecosystem:
1. API Access Restrictions
Strava’s late 2024 API changes already disrupted partnerships. Expect more platforms to lock down their APIs, limiting data sharing across the industry.
2. Patent Warfare Escalation
If Strava wins, expect:
- Apple (Apple Watch activity features)
- Wahoo (cycling computers)
- Polar (GPS watches)
- Suunto (multisport watches)
…to face similar legal challenges or preemptive licensing demands.
3. Consolidation Pressures
Smaller players without deep legal pockets may exit or sell. The fitness tech market could consolidate around a few well-funded giants.
4. Innovation Chilling Effect
Companies may avoid developing features that could arguably infringe on existing patents, slowing innovation in:
- Route discovery
- Performance analytics
- Social fitness features
- Training optimization
What Users Should Know: Practical Impact on Athletes and Fitness Enthusiasts
If you’re using Strava or Garmin (or both), here’s what this means for you right now.
Immediate Concerns
Will my Garmin device stop working?
No. Even if Strava gets an injunction, existing devices won’t brick. However:
- Garmin might disable infringing features via software update
- New device sales could be halted
- Feature updates might be limited
Will Strava-Garmin sync continue?
The legal action itself is over two patents, one around segments, and the other around heatmaps, but Strava has since said that the issue is developer guidelines for its API partners.
The basic data sync (uploading activities from Garmin to Strava) uses different technology and should continue. The dispute is about native Garmin features, not data transfer.
Should I avoid buying a Garmin device?
That’s your call, but understand:
- Garmin has deep pockets for legal defense
- A final ruling could be 2-3 years away
- Preliminary injunction hearings will happen much sooner (possibly within months)
Long-Term Implications
Feature Availability
If Strava prevails:
- Garmin segments might disappear or require Strava integration
- Heatmap features could be removed
- Alternative route discovery methods may emerge
Platform Lock-In
You might face increased pressure to:
- Choose one ecosystem (Strava OR Garmin)
- Pay for multiple premium subscriptions
- Accept limited cross-platform functionality
Alternative Platforms
This dispute could benefit competitors like:
- Komoot (route planning and discovery)
- TrainingPeaks (structured training)
- Wahoo SYSTM (indoor training)
- Apple Fitness+ (overall fitness tracking)
Expert Legal Analysis: What the Precedents Tell Us
Patent litigation in the tech space has established important precedents that will guide this case.
Relevant Case Law
1. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
This Supreme Court case established the four-factor test for permanent injunctions in patent cases. Strava must satisfy all four factors:
- Irreparable injury (they’re arguing network effects)
- Inadequate legal remedies (money isn’t enough)
- Balance of hardships (Strava’s harm > Garmin’s loss)
- Public interest (consumer access to fitness tech)
The balance of hardships factor is particularly interesting here. Shutting down Garmin device sales would harm millions of users—a strong public interest argument.
2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012-2018)
This smartphone patent war teaches us:
- Design patent battles are expensive (over $1 billion in legal fees)
- Juries can award massive damages (initially $1 billion+)
- Appeals can dramatically reduce awards
- Settlements often end litigation before final resolution
Expect a similar trajectory here if early motions don’t resolve the case.
3. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
This case tightened patent eligibility for software and abstract ideas. Garmin might argue Strava’s patents merely claim:
- Abstract ideas (comparing times, showing popular routes)
- Generic computer implementation
- No inventive concept beyond basic data processing
If successful, this defense would invalidate Strava’s patents entirely under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Expert Predictions
Based on similar cases:
Probability of Preliminary Injunction: 30-40%
Courts are hesitant to grant injunctions that disrupt major product lines. Strava will need to show clear infringement and irreparable harm that outweighs consumer impact.
Likelihood of Settlement: 60-70%**
Most patent cases settle before trial. Expect:
- Licensing agreement (Garmin pays royalties)
- Cross-licensing deal (both companies license each other’s patents)
- Feature modifications (Garmin changes implementation to avoid infringement)
- Acquisition possibility (though unlikely given size difference)
If It Goes to Trial: 2-3 years minimum**
Patent litigation is notoriously slow:
- Discovery phase: 6-12 months
- Claim construction (Markman hearing): 12-18 months
- Summary judgment motions: 18-24 months
- Trial: 24-36 months
- Appeals: Add another 12-24 months
The Broader Picture: API Changes and Developer Relations
Strava introduced API changes in late 2024 that disrupted relationships with partners, and the company has said that the issue is developer guidelines for its API partners.
This context is crucial because the lawsuit isn’t happening in isolation.
What Changed in Strava’s API Policy
While specific changes aren’t fully public, typical API restrictions include:
- Rate limiting (fewer API calls allowed)
- Data display restrictions (how partner apps can show Strava data)
- Branding requirements (mandatory Strava logos)
- Feature limitations (what can be done with the data)
Why Strava Made These Changes
1. Data as Competitive Moat
Strava’s real asset is aggregated activity data from millions of users. Allowing unfettered API access essentially gives that asset to competitors.
2. Monetization Pressure
As a private company, Strava faces pressure to:
- Increase premium subscriptions
- Protect differentiating features
- Drive users to their own platform
3. Platform Control
Tech companies increasingly want to control the user experience end-to-end. Third-party integrations can:
- Fragment the user experience
- Reduce engagement with the core platform
- Enable competitors to replicate features
How Garmin Fits Into This Strategy
According to Strava’s chief product officer, Matt Salazar, who took to Reddit to explain the lawsuit, Garmin’s behavior included issues with “every single activity post, screen, graph, image, sharing card, etc.”
This suggests Garmin was using Strava’s data extensively—perhaps too extensively from Strava’s perspective—across their entire ecosystem.
Potential Outcomes: Five Scenarios and Their Implications
Let’s game out how this could end:
Scenario 1: Strava Wins Big (10% probability)
What happens:
- Court grants preliminary and permanent injunctions
- Jury awards substantial damages
- Appeals fail
- Garmin forced to remove features
Impact:
- Garmin scrambles to redesign affected features
- Temporary device sales suspension
- Industry-wide licensing demands from Strava
- Massive settlement payouts
User impact:
- Disrupted Garmin functionality
- Possible device recalls or mandatory updates
- Increased Strava premium subscriptions
Scenario 2: Mixed Victory (25% probability)
What happens:
- Some patents upheld, others invalidated
- Limited injunction on specific features
- Moderate damages awarded
- Garmin must modify but not eliminate features
Impact:
- Garmin pays licensing fees going forward
- Feature modifications preserve core functionality
- Industry establishes clearer patent boundaries
User impact:
- Minimal disruption to existing devices
- Some features may work differently
- Continued ecosystem integration
Scenario 3: Settlement (60% probability – MOST LIKELY)
What happens:
- Companies negotiate licensing agreement
- Garmin pays past royalties
- Future licensing structure established
- Both companies save face
Impact:
- Business as usual with financial adjustments
- Possible feature-sharing collaboration
- Industry breathes easier
User impact:
- Zero disruption
- Possibly enhanced integration
- Status quo maintained
Scenario 4: Garmin Wins on Invalidity (4% probability)
What happens:
- Court invalidates Strava’s patents
- Garmin awarded attorney’s fees
- Precedent set that these technologies aren’t patentable
Impact:
- Open season on similar features
- Strava loses competitive moat
- Industry-wide feature proliferation
User impact:
- More choice across platforms
- Feature parity across devices
- Potential Strava premium value decline
Scenario 5: Procedural Dismissal (1% probability)
What happens:
- Case dismissed on procedural grounds
- Venue challenge succeeds
- Standing issues arise
Impact:
- Possible re-filing in different jurisdiction
- Temporary reprieve for Garmin
- Prolonged uncertainty
User impact:
- Short-term: nothing changes
- Long-term: litigation continues elsewhere
Strava’s Official Response: Setting the Record Straight
Strava’s chief product officer, Matt Salazar, took to Reddit to “set the record straight” about the lawsuit.
While we don’t have the full Reddit post content, this move signals Strava is concerned about public perception among their user base.
Key points Strava likely emphasized:
- They’re protecting innovation, not attacking users
- The lawsuit targets corporate behavior, not individual athletes
- Patent protection is necessary for continued investment in features
- They want fair compensation for technology others use
This PR battle matters because:
- Both companies depend on user loyalty
- Social media can quickly turn against “patent trolls”
- Athletes value ecosystem interoperability
- Bad press affects premium subscription conversion
What This Means for the Future of Fitness Technology
Beyond the legal specifics, this lawsuit represents a fundamental tension in the fitness tech industry.
The Walled Garden vs. Open Ecosystem Debate
Walled Garden Approach (Strava’s position):
- Tight control over proprietary features
- Platform differentiation through exclusive capabilities
- Revenue protection via subscription model
- User lock-in through network effects
Open Ecosystem Approach (Ideal for users):
- Interoperability across platforms
- Data portability
- Feature availability regardless of device
- Competition driving innovation
This lawsuit pushes the industry toward walled gardens, which benefits companies but potentially harms consumers.
Regulatory Implications
This case could attract attention from:
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
If Strava uses patents to create anti-competitive conditions, the FTC might investigate under:
- Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 1-7)
- FTC Act Section 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45)
Patent Reform Advocates
This case illustrates concerns about software patents:
- Are these truly novel inventions?
- Do they promote or hinder innovation?
- Should obvious applications of GPS tech be patentable?
International Dimensions
Patents are territorial, meaning:
- Strava’s U.S. patents don’t affect international Garmin sales
- European Patent Office may have different standards
- Garmin could continue selling “infringing” devices abroad
This could create:
- Regional feature differences
- Import/export complications
- International pressure for patent harmonization
How to Stay Informed: Resources for Following This Case
If you want to track this lawsuit’s progress:
Official Court Documents
PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records)
The case is filed in: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Search for:
- Case name: Strava, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc.
- Filed: September 30, 2025
- Judge: [To be assigned]
Key documents to watch:
- Initial complaint
- Garmin’s answer and counterclaims
- Motion for preliminary injunction
- Claim construction order (Markman ruling)
Legal Analysis Sources
- FOSS Patents (Florian Mueller’s blog) – Expert patent litigation analysis
- Patent Docs – In-depth legal commentary
- IPWatchdog – Patent law news and analysis
- Bloomberg Law – Business and legal coverage
Industry News
- DC Rainmaker – Already provided excellent technical coverage
- BikeRadar – Cycling-focused perspective
- Outside Online – Fitness industry implications
- TechCrunch – Tech business angle
FAQs: Your Burning Questions Answered
Q: When will this lawsuit be resolved?
A: Right now, it’s very early in the process. The complaint was filed Tuesday, September 30, 2025.
Expect:
- Preliminary injunction hearing: 3-6 months
- Full trial: 2-3 years
- Final appeals: 3-5 years total
However, settlement negotiations could end it much sooner (6-18 months is typical for cases that settle).
Q: Will my Garmin watch stop working with Strava?
A: Highly unlikely. The lawsuit targets specific features (segments, heatmaps), not basic data synchronization. Basic activity uploads from Garmin to Strava use different technology and should continue working.
The dispute is about Garmin implementing segment and heatmap features natively on their devices, not about sharing data between platforms.
Q: Is Strava just being a “patent troll”?
A: No. A patent troll (non-practicing entity) doesn’t make products—they just sue others using patents. Strava actively develops and uses these technologies in their product. They’re defending what they claim is their proprietary innovation.
Whether the patents should have been granted is a different question, but Strava isn’t a troll by the legal definition.
Q: Could Garmin just buy Strava?
A: Theoretically yes, but practically unlikely:
Factors against acquisition:
- Strava’s valuation ($1.5-2 billion estimated)
- Regulatory scrutiny (anti-competitive concerns)
- Cultural clash between companies
- Garmin’s focus on hardware vs. Strava’s software-first approach
Factors for acquisition:
- Immediate resolution of lawsuit
- Access to Strava’s data assets
- Vertical integration benefits
But given Garmin’s device-centric business model, acquiring a social fitness platform doesn’t align with their core strategy.
Q: What patents does Garmin hold that could counter-sue?
A: Garmin has extensive patent portfolios covering:
- GPS accuracy improvements
- Battery optimization in wearables
- Heart rate monitoring algorithms
- Display technologies
- Navigation systems
A defensive counter-suit invoking these patents would be typical in patent litigation. Expect Garmin to file counterclaims alleging Strava infringes their patents, leading to cross-licensing negotiations.
Q: How does this affect other fitness platforms like Apple, Wahoo, or Polar?
A: They’re watching nervously. If Strava successfully asserts these patents against Garmin:
Apple: Could face similar claims regarding Apple Watch activity features and route discovery
Wahoo: Their ELEMNT computers have segment features that could be challenged
Polar: Their Polar Flow platform has route popularity features similar to heatmaps
Suunto: Their Suunto app includes performance comparison features
All these companies likely have legal teams evaluating:
- Their potential infringement exposure
- Invalidity arguments for Strava’s patents
- Opportunities to design around the patents
- Licensing negotiation strategies
Q: What legal principle allows Strava to demand Garmin stop selling devices?
A: Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, courts can grant injunctions “in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.”
The legal standard comes from eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (547 U.S. 388, 2006), requiring Strava to prove:
- Irreparable injury: Strava argues Garmin’s infringement causes “loss of network effects, erosion of platform differentiation and goodwill, and brand loyalty that cannot be fully measured or compensated in money.”
- Inadequacy of legal remedies: Money damages won’t restore Strava’s competitive position
- Balance of hardships: Strava’s harm outweighs Garmin’s business disruption
- Public interest: The injunction serves the patent system’s purpose
If Strava satisfies all four factors, the court has discretion to order Garmin to cease sales of infringing devices.
Q: Can I still use Garmin Segments while this lawsuit is pending?
A: Yes, absolutely. Court cases take years. Until there’s a final judgment or preliminary injunction granted, Garmin can continue selling devices and providing all current features.
If a preliminary injunction is granted (months away at earliest), Garmin might need to disable features or modify them. But that’s many legal steps into the future.
For now, use your Garmin device exactly as you always have.
Practical Advice: What Athletes and Fitness Enthusiasts Should Do Now
Let’s get practical. If you’re caught in the middle of this corporate legal battle, here’s what you should actually do:
For Current Strava Users
1. Keep using the platform normally
Nothing changes for you right now. Your data is safe, your features work, and your subscriptions continue.
2. Consider premium subscription value
If Strava prevails in this lawsuit, their platform becomes more valuable (fewer alternatives with similar features). Their premium subscription ($79.99/year) might be worth locking in at current prices.
3. Export your data regularly
As a general best practice (not specific to this lawsuit), regularly export your activity history. Strava allows bulk data export, giving you a backup if you ever want to switch platforms.
4. Don’t make rash decisions
Wait for actual developments before changing platforms. Most of this will resolve through settlement with minimal user impact.
For Current Garmin Users
1. Your devices are fine
Legal proceedings won’t brick your watch or computer. Continue training with confidence.
2. Consider your next purchase timing
If you’re planning to buy a new Garmin device in the next 3-6 months, you might wait to see if a preliminary injunction is granted. Though unlikely, it could affect product availability.
3. Explore alternative route discovery
Familiarize yourself with alternatives like:
- Komoot (excellent route planning)
- TrainingPeaks (structured training plans)
- Local cycling club group rides
- Manual route creation in Garmin Connect
4. Understand the segment ecosystem
Garmin launched segments in 2014, so you’ve been using this feature for over a decade. Even if forced to change, Garmin will find workarounds.
For Users of Both Platforms
1. Appreciate the integration while it lasts
The Strava-Garmin sync currently works well. Enjoy it without worrying about imminent disruption.
2. Don’t get caught in brand loyalty wars
This is a corporate legal dispute, not a referendum on which platform is “better.” Both companies make excellent products.
3. Support interoperability
If you care about this issue, make your voice heard:
- Social media comments matter to both companies
- Customer feedback influences corporate strategy
- Public pressure can push toward settlement
For Competitive Athletes
1. Segment times and KOMs aren’t going anywhere
Even if Garmin’s implementation changes, Strava’s segment database remains intact. Your achievements are recorded and recognized.
2. Consider platform diversification
Don’t rely on a single ecosystem for training analysis. Use:
- Garmin’s native analytics
- Strava’s social features
- TrainingPeaks’ structured planning
- Specialized tools for your sport
3. Focus on training, not tech drama
At the end of the day, your performance matters more than which device you use to track it. Don’t let corporate lawsuits distract from your athletic goals.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah