On September 29, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Jones v. Fanatics, a 13-count putative class action lawsuit accusing Fanatics, Major League Baseball, the NBA, the NFL, and their respective players associations of monopolizing the sports trading card market. The U.S. District Court of Southern New York granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety prior to the discovery phase.
The dismissal hinged entirely on Article III standing, a legal requirement dictating that plaintiffs must prove they suffered a concrete, particularized injury. Judge Swain ruled that the 18 named plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an “injury in fact,” meaning they could not legally prove that Fanatics’ exclusive, long-term licensing agreements caused them individual harm, such as personally paying higher prices, receiving lower-quality products, or suffering from reduced output.
To argue that Fanatics’ market consolidation harmed consumers, the plaintiffs relied heavily on anecdotal internet complaints. The court’s opinion highlighted that the plaintiffs cited three Reddit threads discussing price increases, a YouTube podcast claiming Topps prices were higher than ever, and an article from The Athletic noting “dinged corners” on 2025-26 Topps Basketball hobby boxes. The court rejected this evidence, stating the plaintiffs failed to connect these third-party internet complaints to their own actual purchases. The judge noted the plaintiffs failed to provide any facts regarding which specific cards they actually purchased, the prices they paid, or where and when they bought them.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ claims regarding NFL trading cards were dismissed because they could not establish any past or future injury. The court pointed out that Fanatics’ exclusive licenses to create fully licensed NFL cards did not activate until nearly four months after the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, making it impossible for the plaintiffs to have purchased the allegedly monopolized football products at the time of filing.
The ruling clears a significant legal hurdle for Fanatics regarding indirect consumer sales, arriving just months after the same court dismissed a virtually identical class-action complaint, Scaturo v. Fanatics, over the exact same lack of standing.
Following the dismissal, a Fanatics spokesperson provided the following statement: “As we innovate and grow, Fanatics has become a target for opportunistic, meritless lawsuits. We will not be shaken down and will spend whatever resources necessary to defend the company and continue beating these baseless claims one by one. Our focus remains on delivering the best experiences possible for fans and collectors everywhere.”
While Fanatics has successfully navigated these consumer-led class actions, the broader antitrust battle within the hobby remains active. In a footnote within the Jones dismissal, the judge explicitly noted that rival manufacturer Panini is challenging Fanatics’ conduct in a separate, direct lawsuit (Panini Am., Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc.), where several antitrust claims have already survived a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
What do you think? Let us know on Mantel.
