A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that accused Fanatics and major professional sports leagues of monopolizing the trading card market. In a ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in a New York federal court, the judge determined that the five named plaintiffs—Robert Scaturo, Scott Bubnick, Joseph Davidov, Steven Mardakhaev, and Jonathan Madar—failed to demonstrate they had legal standing to bring the case.
The core issue: the plaintiffs could not adequately show they had overpaid for trading cards or faced imminent financial harm, largely because Fanatics’ licenses with the NBA, NBPA, NFL, and NFLPA had not yet gone into effect when the lawsuit was filed in May 2025. The dismissal, however, was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs have approximately three weeks to refile their lawsuit if they can address the judge’s concerns about standing. While this particular case has been dismissed, the broader competitive landscape in sports trading cards remains contested, with other parties, including Fanatics’ predecessor Panini, continuing to pursue their own antitrust claims against the company for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive practices.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Lawsuit Claiming About Fanatics and the Trading Card Market?
- Why Did the Judge Dismiss the Case for Lack of Standing?
- What Does “Dismissed Without Prejudice” Mean for Future Legal Action?
- How Does This Compare to the Panini Antitrust Case Still Pending?
- What Are the Practical Challenges for Consumers Claiming Antitrust Injury from Trading Cards?
- The Broader Implications for Sports Licensing and Exclusive Agreements
- What’s Next for Consumers and the Competitive Landscape?
- Conclusion
What Was the Lawsuit Claiming About Fanatics and the Trading Card Market?
The lawsuit centered on allegations that Fanatics, the NFL, NBA, MLB, their respective players associations, and OneTeam had conspired to monopolize the sports trading card market across multiple sports, artificially inflating prices for consumers. The plaintiffs argued that this coordinated effort to grant Fanatics exclusive licenses eliminated competition, leaving consumers with fewer options and higher costs than they would face in a truly competitive market. This type of claim falls under federal antitrust law, which prohibits monopolistic conduct and agreements that restrain trade.
The timing of the lawsuit—filed in May 2025—coincided with Fanatics’ expansion into trading cards across professional sports. The company had announced its intention to secure exclusive licenses from major leagues, effectively replacing established competitors like Panini and Topps. For consumers familiar with the trading card hobby, this represented a seismic shift: a single company gaining control over the official cards for nearly every major American sport.
Why Did the Judge Dismiss the Case for Lack of Standing?
Judge Swain’s dismissal hinged on a fundamental requirement of antitrust litigation: the plaintiffs must demonstrate they suffered actual or imminent harm from the allegedly unlawful conduct. In this case, the judge found that none of the named plaintiffs adequately alleged they had overpaid for trading cards or would imminently overpay once Fanatics’ new licenses took effect. This is a critical distinction in federal procedure—merely alleging that a company engaged in anticompetitive conduct is not enough. A plaintiff must show personal, concrete injury.
The timing issue proved decisive. Since the new Fanatics licenses with the leagues and players associations were not yet in effect at the time the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs struggled to argue they had been harmed by the shift in exclusive licensing. They could not point to a specific transaction where they overpaid because Fanatics had not yet become the dominant force in the market. This limitation in federal standing doctrine means that even if the underlying antitrust allegations had merit, the plaintiffs’ failure to establish concrete harm made the lawsuit vulnerable to dismissal.
What Does “Dismissed Without Prejudice” Mean for Future Legal Action?
When a court dismisses a case “without prejudice,” it means the plaintiffs retain the right to refile the lawsuit, typically within a specified timeframe. In this instance, the plaintiffs were given approximately three weeks to file an amended complaint that addresses the judge’s standing concerns. This is far more favorable than a dismissal “with prejudice,” which would permanently bar the plaintiffs from bringing the same claims again.
Without prejudice dismissals essentially give litigants a second chance to correct deficiencies in their legal filings. For consumers and potential claimants interested in challenging Fanatics’ market position, this creates a critical window. If the plaintiffs can demonstrate concrete evidence of actual overpayment—perhaps by showing price comparisons between what they paid under the new Fanatics regime and what they would have paid under prior competitors—they may be able to survive the standing hurdle on a second filing. Alternatively, new plaintiffs could attempt to bring a class action with stronger factual allegations from the outset, though the bar for establishing standing has now been clearly articulated by the court.
How Does This Compare to the Panini Antitrust Case Still Pending?
While this consumer lawsuit has been dismissed, Panini, the prior exclusive trading card manufacturer for multiple sports, continues to pursue its own antitrust lawsuit against Fanatics. Panini’s case alleges anticompetitive behavior and monopolization, but from the perspective of a competitor, not consumers. This represents a different angle of attack on the same fundamental issue: whether Fanatics’ exclusive licenses constitute unlawful monopolistic conduct. Panini has direct economic interests at stake—lost revenue, lost market share—which may present a stronger standing argument than individual consumers trying to prove they overpaid.
The distinction between competitor lawsuits and consumer lawsuits is significant in antitrust law. Competitors can often demonstrate concrete harm more easily because their business interests were directly displaced. Consumer plaintiffs, by contrast, must typically show they paid higher prices than they would have paid in a competitive market. In the Fanatics case, the consumer plaintiffs faced the additional burden of timing: the new market reality had not yet fully materialized when they filed suit. Panini’s ongoing case may ultimately determine whether Fanatics’ licensing arrangements violate federal antitrust law, even if the consumer case cannot proceed immediately.
What Are the Practical Challenges for Consumers Claiming Antitrust Injury from Trading Cards?
One of the most significant limitations consumers face in trading card antitrust cases is proving economic harm. Unlike products with transparent, standardized pricing, trading cards have highly variable values based on player performance, scarcity, condition, and collector demand. This makes it extremely difficult to argue that a consumer overpaid compared to some hypothetical competitive benchmark. What proves that a specific card would cost less under a different licensing arrangement? Additionally, even if Fanatics’ prices were demonstrably higher than Panini’s were, consumers purchasing trading cards do so by choice.
There is no essential service or necessity at stake, unlike in cases involving healthcare, utilities, or necessities. Judges may view trading cards as a discretionary luxury item where consumers can simply opt out if they believe prices are too high. This perspective can make antitrust claims in the hobby especially difficult, since the theory assumes consumers had no alternative but to purchase from the alleged monopolist. For potential claimants, this means establishing both that prices are higher and that consumers had no meaningful alternative—a double burden.
The Broader Implications for Sports Licensing and Exclusive Agreements
Fanatics’ consolidation of trading card licenses across the NFL, NBA, MLB, and other sports represents a significant business development that extends beyond just the trading card category. The company has leveraged these exclusive relationships to expand into other sports merchandise and fan engagement products. Judge Swain’s ruling does not resolve whether these exclusive licensing arrangements are themselves anticompetitive, only that the plaintiffs in this particular case failed to establish standing to challenge them.
This raises important questions for the sports merchandise industry. As leagues increasingly grant exclusive licenses to single companies—particularly emerging companies with substantial venture capital backing—consumers may find their options narrowed. Whether that narrowing constitutes unlawful monopolization remains an open question, particularly if competitors like Panini ultimately prevail in their own litigation. For collectors and consumers, the practical reality is a simplified but centralized market, where Fanatics serves as the gatekeeper for official trading cards.
What’s Next for Consumers and the Competitive Landscape?
The three-week window for refiling creates an immediate test case. If the plaintiffs can craft a revised complaint with better factual allegations about actual overpayment, they may be able to proceed. Alternatively, new plaintiffs with stronger evidence—perhaps from transactions conducted after Fanatics licenses officially took effect—could attempt to bring a fresh class action. The trading card market continues to evolve, and as Fanatics’ prices and practices become more established, the factual foundation for future legal challenges will strengthen.
Looking forward, the outcome of Panini’s antitrust case will likely be more influential than this consumer lawsuit. If Panini successfully demonstrates that Fanatics’ exclusive licensing agreements are anticompetitive, it could pave the way for follow-on consumer claims or regulatory scrutiny. Conversely, if courts find that exclusive licenses—even if they reduce competition—do not violate antitrust law, the consumer case faces an insurmountable legal hurdle regardless of the factual evidence. For now, the trading card market remains dominated by Fanatics, but the legal challenges to that dominance continue to develop.
Conclusion
The dismissal of the Fanatics antitrust lawsuit does not end the competitive debate over who should control the sports trading card market. Judge Laura Taylor Swain’s decision focused narrowly on a procedural issue—whether the plaintiffs established legal standing—rather than the underlying antitrust allegations. The ruling reflects a significant hurdle for consumer class actions in antitrust: demonstrating concrete, personal harm rather than merely claiming that a company engaged in anticompetitive conduct.
For the original plaintiffs, the door remains open to refile within three weeks if they can address the standing concerns. Consumers interested in monitoring this issue should track both the refiled consumer case and Panini’s ongoing antitrust litigation. The competitive landscape for sports trading cards may ultimately be determined by courts ruling on whether exclusive licensing agreements themselves violate federal law, rather than on the prices consumers paid. In the meantime, Fanatics maintains its dominant position, but the legal uncertainty around its market power persists.