As Fanatics continues to grow, the global sports giant has faced numerous lawsuits over the past several years.
The company views them as baseless, opportunistic suits to shake it down in some capacity, and Fanatics hasn’t laid down. It’s been fighting.
And winning.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXBUSINESS.COM
Over the past 12 months, Fanatics has seen seven lawsuits dismissed across its business, which includes its merchandise and collectibles arms.
“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,” a Fanatics spokesperson told Fox Business in an exclusive statement.
On Tuesday, the company’s latest dismissal came in yet another claim from the collectibles side after plaintiffs said Fanatics’ exclusive licenses and relationships with professional sports leagues and players associations reduced the competition in the trading card space and caused consumers to pay more for products.
FEDERAL JUDGE DISMISSES LAWSUIT CLAIMING FANATICS, PRO SPORTS LEAGUES MONOPOLIZED TRADING CARD INDUSTRY
A similar case was dismissed in March, when five plaintiffs — Robert Scaturo, Scott Bubnick, Joseph Davidov, Steven Mardakhaev and Jonathan Madar — accused Fanatics of conspiring to monopolize the ever-growing trading card market, and, in turn, increasing the price of cards.
The court granted Fanatics’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit after Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that “none of the named plaintiffs adequately allege that they have overpaid or will imminently overpay for trading cards sold by defendants.”
This new dismissal, though, is a substantially broader and more coordinated challenge toward Fanatics than the Scaturo case.
The Jones case consolidated multiple indirect purchaser actions, naming 18 plaintiffs and numerous plaintiffs’ firms, while asserting 13 federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims, according to court documents obtained by Fox Business.
An indirect purchaser would mean a consumer buying trading cards from a third party, like a hobby shop or card-selling entity, rather than going directly through Fanatics.
The consolidated complaint presented the plaintiffs’ coordinated effort to assemble their strongest allegations, different from the Scaturo case and perhaps harder to dismiss, but it still didn’t make sense in the eyes of Swain, who presided over this case as well.
In terms of collectibles, rival company Panini continues fighting its own lawsuit against Fanatics, accusing it of anticompetitive behavior and monopolization of the sports card industry. This came after Fanatics acquired exclusive licensing rights from the NBA and NFL, which were previously held by Panini. After April 2026, Fanatics will have exclusive licenses to the NBA, NFL, MLB, Premier League, F1 and WWE.
The Jones decision may weaken Panini’s broader market harm narrative because it’s the second case in which consumers tried to turn Panini’s allegations into their own suit against Fanatics. The Jones suit also marks the second consumer case dismissed before discovery.
Fanatics denied Panini’s claims and filed a countersuit alleging its competitor set out on a “protracted, unlawful, and deceitful campaign of unfair trade practices, strong-arm tactics, and tortious misconduct” in an attempt to force Fanatics to pay a vast amount for Panini to end its licenses in 2022.
As for other lawsuit dismissals, Fanatics saw the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismiss two separate class action antitrust cases claiming Fanatics and the NFL unlawfully restricted distribution of authorized NFL goods.
In the suit from Casey’s Distributing, Inc., the court dismissed the complaint for the second time, holding the plaintiff failed to allege antitrust standing because the NFL, as trademark owner, could choose which retailers can sell its products.
Casey’s didn’t allege that consumers paid higher prices in this case, according to court documents obtained by Fox Business.
Read the full article here