CARDBOARD POLICE

Sports Card Investor's thumbnail asks "NOT A MONOPOLY?" in yellow capitals next to a judge with a gavel and a Fanatics case file. The ruling behind the video never answered that question, and on its own terms it could not have.

The video is titled "Lawsuits Against Fanatics THROWN OUT OF COURT," and it was published on Oct. 8, 2026. The title is accurate about the outcome. The thumbnail's question, though, is the one the court never reached.

What the Sept. 29 ruling decided

On Sept. 29, Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York dismissed Jones v. Fanatics, a 13-count putative class action, in its entirety. Heavy reports that the suit accused Fanatics of monopolization and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, challenged its acquisitions of Topps and of card manufacturer GC Packaging, and targeted the exclusive licensing arrangements involving MLB, the NFL, the NBA and their players associations. Fox Business describes it as a consolidation of several indirect-purchaser actions naming 18 plaintiffs, meaning collectors who bought cards from hobby shops and other third parties rather than from Fanatics directly.

Swain ruled that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. She granted every defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and ordered the case closed. According to Heavy's account of the decision, the problem was proof of personal injury, and it came up again and again:

  • The plaintiffs cited Reddit complaints and a YouTube podcast about rising card prices, but did not identify what products the named plaintiffs bought, what they paid, or how those complaints became an overcharge for them.
  • They cited an article describing dinged corners in 2025-26 Topps Basketball boxes, but did not allege that they bought that product or had the same problem.
  • The NFL-related claims fell because no named plaintiff alleged buying NFL cards.

What it did not decide

Heavy puts it directly: the ruling "was not a finding that every allegation against Fanatics was false." A standing dismissal settles who may bring a case. It does not settle whether the conduct alleged was lawful. No court has ruled on the merits of the monopoly claims.

Analysis: that is why the thumbnail and the title tell two different stories. "Thrown out of court" describes what happened. "Not a monopoly?" asks a question the dismissal could not answer, because the case ended before anyone argued it.

The second time, with the same judge

This is the second consumer suit against Fanatics that Swain has dismissed on standing. In March she dismissed Scaturo v. Fanatics on the same grounds, and in early June its plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed that case with prejudice, ending it for good, according to Sports Illustrated. This blog covered that suit in CASE #0070. In the new decision, Heavy reports, Swain called Scaturo a "virtually identical complaint."

Sportico counted three legal wins for Fanatics and the NFL in the Southern District of New York that week, writing that judges had dismissed "lawsuits accusing the online retailer and the football league of illegally conspiring to suppress competition." Fox Business reports that Fanatics has seen seven lawsuits dismissed across its business over the past 12 months, and it carried a statement from a company spokesperson: "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."

The case that is still open

Panini America's own antitrust suit against Fanatics is a separate matter, and it is before the same judge. Panini is a direct competitor alleging harm to its own business. In March 2025, Heavy notes, Swain granted only part of Fanatics' motion to dismiss that suit and let several of Panini's claims continue. The Jones decision itself recognizes the difference, noting that Panini had challenged the conduct in a lawsuit "in which several of its claims survived a motion to dismiss for lack of standing." In Heavy's words, "this is not a ruling that disposes of Panini v. Fanatics."

Collectors have now taken two runs at Fanatics in federal court, and both stopped at the same door: neither group showed a judge enough personal harm to argue anything else. The thumbnail asks a fair question. The only party that has made it through that door so far is Panini, and its case is still open.

Watch directly on YouTube

Channel: Sports Card Investor