The Short Answer
- Collectors Holdings controls ~80% of the card grading market through PSA (72%), SGC (5%), and Beckett (3%).
- The lawsuit alleges violations of the Clayton Act and Sherman Act — seeking treble damages and forced divestment of SGC and Beckett.
- After acquiring SGC, Collectors raised prices 20% and increased turnaround times by as much as 400%, the complaint alleges.
- CGC is the only remaining independent competitor of scale, with roughly 18% market share.
- Congressman Pat Ryan urged the FTC to investigate in a December 2025 letter, calling it a "textbook roll-up strategy."
- Collectors has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing capacity constraints — not anticompetitive conduct — drove price and timing changes.
What the Antitrust Lawsuit Alleges
A proposed class action filed in April 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accuses Collectors Holdings Inc. of illegally monopolizing the card grading market through serial acquisitions. The plaintiff, Michael Rasmussen of Phoenix, Arizona, names Collectors Holdings, PSA, SGC, and Beckett as defendants.
The complaint alleges that Collectors violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act — which prohibits acquisitions that substantially lessen competition — and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization. The core allegation is that instead of competing with SGC and Beckett on price and service quality, Collectors bought them.
The lawsuit seeks statutory treble damages, compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction preventing Collectors from continuing the acquisitions, and an order requiring Collectors to divest SGC and Beckett so they can function as independent companies. The plaintiff is seeking class certification, which would extend any damages to all affected collectors.
According to the complaint, SGC and Beckett "served important roles as growing competitors" that provided "significant downward competitive pressure on prices and upward competitive pressure on service quality." By acquiring both, Collectors "eliminated competitors that were putting downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on service quality."
Card Grading Market Share Breakdown
The complaint provides specific market share figures based on grading volume data:
| Company | Market Share | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSA | ~72% | Collectors Holdings | Acquired 2021 |
| SGC | ~5% | Collectors Holdings | Acquired Feb 2024 |
| Beckett (BGS) | ~3% | Collectors Holdings | Acquired Dec 2025 |
| CGC | ~18% | Independent | Only independent of scale |
| TAG | ~2% | Independent | Growing but small |
Combined, Collectors Holdings controls approximately 80% of the grading market by volume. CGC is the only remaining independent competitor of scale. TAG, while growing rapidly at ~40% year-over-year, remains a small player with roughly 52,000 cards graded in May 2026 compared to PSA's 2.5 million.
The complaint notes that before the acquisitions, four major independent graders competed for business. After the acquisitions, only two remain: Collectors (PSA/SGC/BGS) and CGC. That reduction from four to two is central to the antitrust claim.
The SGC Acquisition: What Happened After
The complaint details what it describes as a pattern of acquiring a competitor, promising independence, and then systematically dismantling it. SGC serves as the primary example.
Collectors acquired SGC in February 2024. According to the lawsuit, the following changes occurred after the acquisition:
- SGC's most popular grading service saw a 20% price increase within a month of the acquisition.
- Expedited grading services saw a 275% price increase.
- Turnaround times increased by as much as 400%.
- SGC's leadership departed shortly after the merger.
- Resources were diverted from SGC to PSA.
- SGC's grading volume plummeted by 61% in two months.
Before the acquisition, SGC offered grading starting at $15 per card with 5–10 business day turnaround. During the same period, PSA charged a $150 membership fee plus $19 per card at its lowest tier with 20–30 business day turnaround. SGC was actively undercutting PSA on both price and speed — the kind of competitive pressure the antitrust laws are designed to protect.
Collectors has disputed this characterization, arguing that SGC's volume changes reflect broader market dynamics and that the company has invested in expanding capacity across all its brands.
The Beckett Acquisition and Pass-Through Concerns
The Beckett acquisition has an unusual ownership history that the lawsuit and Congressional letter both flag. Beckett was acquired by Collective Holdings in late 2024 with $250 million in private equity backing, then flipped to Collectors Holdings less than a year later in December 2025.
Congressman Pat Ryan's December 18, 2025 letter to the FTC raised the specific concern that Collective Holdings "functioned as a pass-through entity designed to evade regulatory scrutiny." The letter asks the FTC to investigate whether Collectors was involved in the 2024 acquisition that preceded its own purchase.
The complaint also alleges that Beckett more than doubled its in-person grading prices from $25 to $60 per card following the acquisition. Beckett's August 2025 pause of Base and Standard submissions — which took its cheapest tiers offline — is cited as further evidence of reduced competition.
Collectors has countered that the grading market has seen explosive demand, creating capacity constraints that naturally affect pricing and turnaround. The company points to its $200 million infrastructure investment and new Plano, Texas facility as evidence it is expanding output rather than restricting it.
FTC Involvement and Congressional Pressure
Congressman Pat Ryan (D-NY) sent a formal letter to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson on December 18, 2025, urging the Commission to investigate Collectors Holdings. The letter cites Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act, and references the 2023 Merger Guidelines' recognition that serial acquisitions can violate antitrust laws even when no single transaction independently triggers liability.
The letter specifically asks the FTC to investigate four areas:
- Monopolization: Whether Collectors acquired SGC and Beckett specifically to eliminate competition.
- Serial Acquisition Pattern: Whether the systematic roll-up violates Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- Regulatory Evasion: Whether Collective Holdings functioned as a pass-through entity to evade merger scrutiny.
- Good-Faith Representations: Whether the post-acquisition marginalization of SGC contradicted promises made at the time of merger.
As of August 2026, the FTC has not publicly announced a formal investigation. The antitrust class action and a separate RICO lawsuit filed in July 2026 are proceeding in federal court.
Collectors Holdings Response: Motion to Dismiss
Collectors Holdings filed two motions on June 8, 2026: a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.
In its motion to dismiss, Collectors argues that the complaint fails to plausibly connect alleged price increases or longer turnaround times to the acquisitions themselves. The company's primary defense is that the grading market experienced explosive demand growth, creating capacity constraints that naturally affect both price and service speed.
Collectors specifically argues that the complaint does not allege the company shut down SGC or Beckett, fired graders after the acquisitions, reduced BGS output, controlled CGC's pricing, or prevented CGC and other competitors from expanding capacity. The company points to CGC's 311% year-over-year sports card growth as evidence that competitors can and do expand.
The company also challenges Rasmussen's standing, noting that he does not allege he ever submitted cards to SGC or Beckett. According to Collectors, Rasmussen's account history shows only one PSA submission in October 2025 — before the Beckett acquisition closed.
The motion to compel arbitration references terms of service that Collectors argues require disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than class action litigation.
What This Means for Collectors Right Now
For the average card collector, the antitrust lawsuit has no immediate operational impact. PSA, SGC, and Beckett continue to accept submissions (though PSA Value tiers and Beckett Base/Standard are currently paused). Grading services have not been disrupted by the litigation.
However, the lawsuit highlights a structural reality that affects every grading decision: the three largest graders are owned by one company. This means that "shopping around" between PSA, SGC, and Beckett is not actually choosing between independent competitors — it is choosing between products from the same parent company.
The practical implications for collectors:
- Price convergence: When one company owns three of five major graders, pricing tends to converge upward. The simultaneous pauses at PSA and Beckett in 2026 illustrate how capacity decisions at one brand ripple across the portfolio.
- Reduced competitive pressure: SGC was the primary price competitor to PSA before acquisition. Its marginalization removed the downward pressure on grading fees that benefits consumers.
- CGC as the independent alternative: CGC's 18% market share and independent ownership make it the most meaningful competitive constraint on Collectors. The lawsuit's outcome could determine whether CGC remains the only independent or whether SGC and Beckett are forced to spin back out.
If the lawsuit succeeds in forcing divestment, collectors could see SGC and Beckett return to independent operation with independent pricing — potentially restoring the competitive landscape that existed before 2024. If it fails, the current consolidation becomes permanent, and pricing power rests with a single entity controlling 80% of the market.
Related Lawsuits Against PSA and Collectors
The antitrust class action is one of multiple legal challenges facing Collectors Holdings in 2026:
- RICO class action (July 2026): A separate proposed class action filed in Maryland federal court accuses PSA of fraudulent grading practices, subjective grading standards, Gem Mint population manipulation, and RICO violations. The lawsuit seeks $1 billion in damages, potentially $3 billion under RICO trebling.
- California lawsuit: Card collector Steve Lichtman filed a lawsuit accusing PSA of acting in bad faith and engaging in fraudulent business practices.
- National Convention backlash: PSA faced collector backlash at the 2026 National Sports Collectors Convention in Rosemont after suspending on-site Express grading on opening day. Some collectors paid $699 per card for same-day service that was not delivered.
Collectors has not publicly commented on the RICO lawsuit as of August 2026. The company's motion to dismiss the antitrust case is pending before the court.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Collectors Holdings antitrust lawsuit about?
How much of the card grading market does Collectors Holdings control?
What happened to SGC after Collectors acquired it?
Is the FTC investigating Collectors Holdings?
What does the lawsuit mean for collectors?
How is this lawsuit different from the RICO lawsuit against PSA?
Has Collectors Holdings responded to the lawsuit?
Sources & Further Reading
- Bloomberg Law: Collectors Holdings Hit With Sports-Card Grading Monopoly Suit
- Value Added Resource: PSA Parent Collectors Holdings Faces Antitrust Lawsuit
- Congressman Pat Ryan FTC Letter (December 18, 2025)
- Lexology: Trading Card Grader Faces Monopolisation Suit
- Value Added Resource: PSA Parent Collectors Pushes Back On Antitrust Suit
Marcus Chen has evaluated over 50,000 sports cards and TCG cards across PSA, BGS, SGC, and CGC standards. Before joining PreGradeCards, he worked as a submission specialist for a major grading company and trained collectors and dealers on condition assessment.
With submission floors rising, pre-screening is no longer optional. Use our AI Pre-Grade Calculator to score a card's PSA 10 odds before you pay, and the Submission Planner to pick the right tier.