The Short Answer
- To win, plaintiffs must prove monopoly power, willful conduct, and consumer harm.
- The relevant market must be narrowly defined — "licensed sports cards" — which courts may reject.
- Standing requires a direct, provable link between the conduct and the price paid.
- Panini's separate lawsuit may produce internal documents that help future plaintiffs.
The Three Elements of Monopolization
Under Sherman Act Section 2, plaintiffs must prove three things:
- Monopoly power — the defendant controls a relevant market (typically 60%+ share).
- Willful acquisition or maintenance — the power was obtained through something other than superior product or business acumen.
- Antitrust injury — consumers suffered higher prices, reduced quality, or less choice.
Fanatics would argue it won licenses through competitive bidding and superior resources — not anticompetitive conduct — and that collectors can still buy cards from competing collectibles markets.
Defining the Relevant Market
This is the central legal battleground. Plaintiffs want a narrow market: "licensed U.S. sports trading cards." In that market, Fanatics has near-total control after April 2026. Fanatics wants a broad market: "all trading cards and sports collectibles," which includes Pokemon, Magic, unlicensed cards, and memorabilia. Courts have split on this issue in other industries. If a court accepts the narrow definition, plaintiffs have a stronger case. If it accepts the broad one, Fanatics likely wins.
Barriers for Collectors
The March 2026 dismissal revealed the biggest barrier: standing. Consumers buy cards from retailers, not directly from Fanatics. Proving that Fanatics' licensing structure caused the exact overcharge at the register requires economic modeling and purchase documentation that most collectors do not have. Class actions also require a plaintiff class that is identifiable and suffered the same type of harm — difficult when collectors buy at different times, from different channels, and for different reasons.
What a Winning Case Would Look Like
A successful case would need:
- Expert economist testimony showing Fanatics' market share in licensed cards is 90%+ and that box prices rose monopolistically after each license transfer.
- Plaintiffs with clean purchase records — documented hobby box purchases made after the alleged monopoly conduct began, with price comparisons to pre-monopoly periods.
- Smoking-gun documents from Panini's litigation or discovery showing Fanatics intended to suppress competition, not merely win licenses.
- Regulatory backup — a FTC or state AG investigation into exclusive sports licensing would bolster private litigation.
None of these were present in the dismissed case. But they could emerge in future litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it take to win an antitrust case against Fanatics?
Why is the "relevant market" so important?
Can I personally sue Fanatics for antitrust violations?
Will there be another lawsuit against Fanatics?
Sources & Further Reading
- Sportico — Fanatics Armed With Defenses to Repel Antitrust Suit
- Sportico — Fanatics Wins Antitrust Lawsuit as Trading Card Buyers Lack Standing
- DiCello Levitt — Landmark Antitrust Class Action
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.