Deck: On September 29, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the consolidated consumer case Jones v. Fanatics because the collectors suing lacked standing. The court did not rule on whether Fanatics, the leagues or the players associations broke antitrust law. Panini's separate case against Fanatics is still active.
A federal judge has now dismissed a second consumer Fanatics lawsuit on standing grounds this year. On September 29, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York granted every defendant's motion to dismiss in Jones v. Fanatics, Inc. et al. (No. 1:25-cv-05776) and directed the clerk to close the case, according to the PacerMonitor docket and reporting by Heavy and Law360.
If you buy, rip or sell licensed MLB, NFL or NBA cards, three things are true this week:
-
There is no settlement, payout or claims process.
-
Nothing in the ruling changes who holds the card licenses.
-
We found no verified evidence that the ruling will move prices.
What was the case?
The Jones suit was filed July 14, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, according to the docket. The docket lists the nature of suit as antitrust, with monopolizing trade as the cause. Plaintiffs' firm DiCello Levitt announced the filing the next day. The firm named Phillip Jones of Phoenix, Arizona, as the plaintiff. The docket later shows other plaintiffs, including ones named Nachman and Goldberger, on a September 25, 2026 filing in the same case.
According to DiCello Levitt, the defendants were Fanatics, Inc.; MLB; the NFL; the NBA; their respective players associations; and OneTeam Partners. The proposed class covered individuals and entities nationwide who bought newly issued, fully licensed MLB, NFL or NBA trading cards produced by Fanatics from January 1, 2022, onward. The suit asked for injunctive relief, actual and treble damages, disgorgement and restitution.
Heavy describes it as a 13-count putative class action. The complaint alleged monopolization and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. It challenged Fanatics' acquisitions of Topps and card manufacturer GC Packaging, and it targeted the exclusive licensing deals with MLB, the NFL, the NBA and their players associations. These were allegations. No court has found any of them to be true.
What did the judge decide?
The docket order, as shown on PacerMonitor (entry 209), states that "all of the Defendants' motions to dismiss the ACC are granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." It adds that "the motions to compel arbitration are denied as moot, and the ACC is dismissed in its entirety." ACC means the amended consolidated class action complaint. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. PacerMonitor's docket summary says the order resolved nine separate motions filed by various defendants.
The arbitration motions became moot because the court decided it had no jurisdiction over the case. With no case left, there was nothing to send to arbitration.
Why did the collectors lack standing?
To sue in federal court under Article III, a plaintiff has to show a concrete injury of their own. Heavy's reporting says the Jones complaint fell short on that point. The plaintiffs "pointed to complaints on Reddit and a YouTube podcast about rising sports-card prices." In Heavy's paraphrase, they did not identify what the named plaintiffs bought or what they paid. They also "cited an article describing dinged corners in 2025-26 Topps Basketball boxes" without alleging that they bought those boxes.
The NFL claims had an extra problem. Heavy reports: "Swain also dismissed the NFL-related claims after noting that none of the named plaintiffs alleged purchasing NFL cards."
For collectors, the takeaway is simple. General frustration about prices and quality control, even when many people share it, is not the same as a documented personal injury in court.
Does this mean Fanatics did nothing wrong?
No. A Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal means the court found it had no power to hear these plaintiffs' claims. It is not a decision on whether the conduct they described was legal or illegal. Heavy made the same point: the ruling was not a finding that Fanatics' conduct was lawful. The court did not decide the antitrust questions. We will not guess how they would come out.
Haven't we seen this before?
Yes. This is the second consumer case the same judge has dismissed on standing grounds in 2026. On March 24, 2026, Swain dismissed Scaturo v. Fanatics, as Fox Business reported. In that case she wrote: "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." Panini held the NFL and NBA licenses when Scaturo was filed in March 2025.
The five Scaturo plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their case with prejudice (a June 1 filing and a June 2 order), which ended it permanently, according to Heavy and Athlon Sports. After that exit, Fanatics told Baseball America: "We said from the start that this was a baseless and fundamentally flawed copycat lawsuit, since Fanatics was being accused of raising prices on cards we didn't even produce." That statement was about Scaturo. We found no Fanatics statement on the Jones ruling.
According to Heavy, Swain wrote in the Jones decision that Scaturo involved a "virtually identical complaint."
What about Panini?
Panini's suit is a different kind of case. Panini is suing as a direct competitor that says it was harmed, not as a consumer. According to Heavy, the Jones ruling itself distinguished Panini, which had challenged the conduct in a suit "in which several of its claims survived a motion to dismiss for lack of standing."
Here is where the Panini case stands, based on the sources we reviewed:
-
March 11, 2025: Swain allowed Panini's monopoly-power allegation to proceed, writing that Panini "adequately pleaded facts" supporting it, per Sports Illustrated. She dismissed Panini's direct-damages theory, noting Panini "benefitted from the alleged market concentration as a prevailing duopolist." Fanatics' tortious-interference claims against Panini also partly survived.
-
July 9, 2025: Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered Fanatics to give Panini's attorneys, on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis, seven unredacted licensing agreements with MLB, the MLBPA, the NFL, the NFLPA, the NBA, the NBPA and NBA China, according to Front Office Sports.
-
June 10, 2026: Sports Collectors Digest reported that the case was in discovery and that trial was not expected before 2027. The same judge oversees both the Panini case and the consumer cases.
The Panini case has not been resolved. Nothing in the Jones ruling tells us how it will end.
Will card prices or licenses change?
The ruling does not change any license. Fox Business reported in March 2026 that Topps, a Fanatics subsidiary, did not produce NBA cards until October 2025 and would not handle NFL cards until April 2026. Athlon Sports reported in June 2026 that Fanatics holds exclusive deals with MLB, the NFL, the NBA, Formula 1, UFC and WWE. Writing about the earlier Scaturo exit, Athlon said it "changes absolutely nothing for everyday card buyers." We see no reason to read Jones differently.
On prices, we found no verified data tying this ruling to any change in box or singles prices. If a seller or a video tells you a box is "about to jump" because of the case, treat that as a sales pitch. Price hobby boxes and singles on recent sold listings, not on asking prices or legal headlines. Our sold-comps guide walks through that method.
Is there money for collectors or a claims process?
No. Jones was a putative class action, and it was dismissed before any class was certified or any settlement was reached. There is no fund and no claims form. This article is not legal advice. If you have questions about your own situation, talk to a lawyer.
What to watch
-
The Jones docket. The case is closed on the court's order. The public PacerMonitor docket is where any further activity would appear.
-
Panini v. Fanatics. This is still the case to watch, because the court let a competitor's monopoly-power claim go forward. Watch whether it reaches trial or settles.
The practical read
Do not change a buy, hold or sell decision because of this ruling. It does not change the products or the licenses, and there is no evidence yet that it changes prices. Decide based on the same things you would check in any other week: recent sold comps, population data if you grade, your all-in cost after fees and shipping, and how quickly the card actually sells.
Related reading
-
Does the Record Flagg Debut Patch Lift His Cheaper Rookie Cards?
-
What eBay, Fanatics Collect and COMC Keep From a $100 Card Sale
-
Why Reality Fracture Prices Are Unlikely to Hold Through Opening Week
Sources
-
Jones v. Fanatics, Inc. et al (1:25-cv-05776) docket, PacerMonitor
-
Fanatics, NFL, NBA, MLB Defeat Trading Card Monopoly Suit, Law360 (Hailey Konnath, Sept. 29, 2026)
-
Panini, Fanatics Lawsuits to Continue Per Judge, Sports Illustrated (Cole Benz)
Note: This article contains AI-assisted content and has been reviewed in our editorial workflow.
DISCLAIMER: PureGrail articles are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Nothing on this site constitutes financial, investment, or legal advice. Collectibles are speculative assets and values can decrease significantly. Always conduct your own research before buying or selling. Past price performance does not indicate future results.
