In March, a New York federal judge tossed the class-action antitrust lawsuit that accused Fanatics, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and their players' associations of conspiring to monopolize the trading card market. The ruling is a procedural victory for Michael Rubin's company — but the underlying antitrust war is far from over.

Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Fanatics' motion to dismiss on all counts, ruling that none of the five named plaintiffs had legal standing to bring the case. The plaintiffs — Robert Scaturo, Scott Bubnick, Joseph Davidov, Steven Mardakhaev, and Jonathan Madar — alleged that Fanatics and the leagues conspired to drive up card prices through exclusive licensing deals. But the court found a fundamental flaw in their argument: when the lawsuit was filed in March 2025, Fanatics hadn't produced a single NBA or NFL-licensed trading card.

"Not only did no named Plaintiff purchase such a trading card from Defendants prior to the filing of the FAC, but it was actually impossible for any consumer to do so," Swain wrote in the ruling.

The decision underscores a basic reality of the licensing timeline. Panini still held the NFL and NBA licenses when the suit was filed. Topps — acquired by Fanatics in 2022 for approximately $500 million — didn't release its first NBA-licensed cards until October 2025. The NFL license was not due to move to Topps until April 2026 at the earliest. The plaintiffs were essentially suing a company for raising prices on products it hadn't yet made.

The Standing Problem

Beyond the timing issue, the court found the plaintiffs' price-gouging argument on MLB cards equally insufficient. They presented a chart comparing prices of Topps' licensed MLB cards against Panini's unlicensed products, but failed to "explain whether the difference in prices was traceable to extraneous factors, such as production costs or quality differences, or whether the difference was traceable to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct."

A Fanatics spokesperson called the lawsuit "baseless and fundamentally flawed" and noted the court "ruled that the plaintiffs did not even have standing to sue." Plaintiffs' attorney John Radice told The Athletic after the March ruling that his clients were "assessing the court's dismissal without prejudice and considering all options." They did not refile: in early June the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, which ends it for good, according to Sports Illustrated.

The Panini Factor

While the consumer class action was dismissed, the real antitrust fight remains very much alive. Panini's separate lawsuit against Fanatics — accusing it of anticompetitive behavior and monopolization — is still working its way through the courts. Fanatics countersued, alleging Panini engaged in a "protracted, unlawful, and deceitful campaign of unfair trade practices" in an attempt to force a massive payout from Fanatics to end its licenses early.

The Panini case is arguably the more consequential of the two. It directly challenges the licensing structure that gave Fanatics exclusive control over every major American sports card license within five years of entering the industry.

What Fanatics Now Controls

After April 2026, Fanatics (through Topps) will hold exclusive trading card licenses for:

  • National Football League (NFL) — replacing Panini
  • National Basketball Association (NBA) — replacing Panini
  • Major League Baseball (MLB) — acquired via the Topps purchase
  • Premier League — global soccer's biggest property
  • Formula 1 — the fastest-growing motorsport in America
  • WWE — professional wrestling's stranglehold on the entertainment market

No single company in the history of the sports card industry has ever held this much concentrated market power. Not Topps in its 1950s heyday. Not Fleer during the junk wax era. Not Panini during its 2010s peak. The dismissal of the consumer class action removes one legal obstacle from Fanatics' path — but it does not address the structural question of whether one company should control every licensed trading card in American sports.

What This Ruling Actually Means

It's important to understand what the March ruling did — and didn't — decide. The court did not rule on whether Fanatics engaged in anticompetitive behavior. It did not rule on the merits of monopoly claims. It ruled that these particular plaintiffs, at this particular time, could not show they were harmed by a company that hadn't yet produced the cards they claimed were overpriced.

For collectors, the practical implications are straightforward: Fanatics now has a clear legal runway to set prices across MLB, NBA, NFL, and soccer without this consumer class action looming overhead — at least until Panini's case reaches a verdict. Whether that translates to higher prices, more innovation, or the kind of quality control that the hobby desperately needs will depend entirely on how Michael Rubin chooses to wield the power the courts have just confirmed he holds.

The hobby is entering an era of unprecedented concentration. The March ruling cleared one legal hurdle. But the bigger questions — about competition, pricing, and the future of the trading card market — are far from settled.

The verdict: A decisive procedural win for Fanatics, but the antitrust war has only just begun. The Panini case is the main event, and every collector should be watching.