The Panini lawsuit is really two lawsuits: an antitrust case Panini America filed against Fanatics in August 2023, and a countersuit Fanatics filed four days later. Both survived motions to dismiss in March 2025, both are now in the Southern District of New York before Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain, and neither has a trial date. Discovery is expected to run into 2027 or possibly 2028.1CLLCT. Panini to Explore Strategic Options Including Possible Sale
What Panini Is Suing Fanatics Over
Panini filed suit on August 3, 2023, alleging violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The complaint accuses Fanatics of monopolizing the licensed U.S. trading card market by stacking exclusive league-plus-union contracts, acquiring Panini’s primary card manufacturer to choke off supply, poaching dozens of Panini employees, and paying rookies directly to withhold autographs from Panini products.2Card Capsule. Fanatics vs. Panini Licensing Fight Panini also brought tortious interference and defamation claims.
The Fanatics licensing push began in 2021, when the company locked in 20-year exclusive deals with the NFL and MLB and a 10-year deal with the NBA, all outside the open bidding process that had historically governed such rights.3Bloomberg Law. Fanatics, Italian Rival Test Antitrust Law in Market-Share Fight In 2022, Fanatics acquired Topps for roughly $500 million.4Sportico. Fanatics Trading Card Antitrust Lawsuit Defenses Before Panini’s licenses expired, Fanatics reportedly offered more than $2 billion to buy them out early; the deal collapsed.5Yahoo Sports. Inside the Fanatics-Panini Feud
The manufacturing allegation is central. GC Packaging handled over 90 percent of Panini’s card production, and Fanatics acquired a controlling stake in GCP in March 2022. Panini says the acquisition violated a contractual provision requiring its consent for any change in control. Before the deal, GCP ran 18 machines with 15 dedicated to Panini; afterward, capacity allocated to Panini was cut roughly in half. In 2022, GCP delivered only 58 percent of Panini’s requested production, a shortfall of 116 million packs.6ClassAction.org. Scaturo v. Fanatics Inc. et al., Complaint Panini’s Clayton Act Section 7 claim describes GCP as an “essential input” that Fanatics used to squeeze a rival.7CourtListener. Panini America Inc. v. Fanatics Inc., Complaint
What Fanatics Is Suing Panini Over
Fanatics filed its countersuit on August 7, 2023, in the Southern District of New York. It alleges unfair competition, breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith, and tortious interference, and claims about $200 million in lost revenue. The core accusation is that Panini deliberately inflated earnings projections during the failed early-termination talks to drag out negotiations and extract a larger buyout payment.8Card Capsule. Fanatics vs. Panini Licensing Fight
Panini originally filed in the Middle District of Florida, but Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle transferred the case to the Southern District of New York in late 2023.9mLex. Panini Antitrust Claims Transferred to SDNY Both suits ended up before Judge Swain, with Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo handling pretrial management. Judge Swain declined to consolidate them, finding a “separate nucleus of core events.”10Sportico. Fanatics, Panini Cases Continue
What the Court Has Ruled
On March 10, 2025, Judge Swain issued a mixed ruling that let the core of both cases proceed while trimming peripheral claims.
On Panini’s side, the court found that Panini had adequately pleaded monopolization and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. Although Fanatics currently holds only about 33 percent of active licenses, Judge Swain wrote that Panini had plausibly alleged monopoly power based on Fanatics’ ability to “set prices and exclude competitors” through coercive tactics, including threats to retailers and demands for exclusivity. She noted that Fanatics’ deals cover 100 percent of the major-league trading card market for at least a decade, which “dramatically decreases the likelihood of any sufficiently procompetitive justification.”11Justia. Panini America Inc. v. Fanatics Inc., No. 1:2023-cv-09714, Memorandum Order
The court dismissed Panini’s Clayton Act claim related to the Topps acquisition, reasoning that as a duopolist Panini may actually have benefited from increased market concentration and failed to show particularized harm. Parts of the tortious interference and defamation claims were also trimmed.10Sportico. Fanatics, Panini Cases Continue
On Fanatics’ side, the tortious interference claim survived. Judge Swain found merit in the allegation that Panini “wrongfully threatened its employees with meritless litigation” to keep them from joining Fanatics in 2023. The unfair competition claim was dismissed because Fanatics failed to show that Panini gained any “direct commercial benefit” from the alleged conduct.10Sportico. Fanatics, Panini Cases Continue
The Discovery Fight That Is Slowing Everything Down
In December 2024, Magistrate Judge Figueredo ordered Fanatics to produce six licensing contracts it holds with the NFL, NBA, MLB, and their respective players’ associations. Fanatics objected and appealed to Judge Swain, who overruled the objection. When Fanatics turned over the documents on May 15, 2026, it had redacted financial terms, commercial provisions, and termination clauses. Panini challenged the redactions, and after a July 2, 2026, hearing, Judge Figueredo ordered the contracts produced in full without redactions, subject to an “attorney’s-eyes-only” restriction. She reasoned that “redacting core aspects of the licensing agreements that are plainly relevant to the claims at issue here unfairly hinders Panini when there are other measures in place to protect Fanatics’ business interests.” Fanatics had until July 21, 2026, to appeal.12Sports Business Journal. Judge Orders Fanatics to Turn Over Contracts in Panini Lawsuit
Panini’s Arbitration Win Against the NFLPA
Outside the federal cases, Panini scored a separate victory in July 2024. The NFL Players Incorporated had tried to terminate its licensing agreement with Panini in August 2023, citing a “change of control” triggered by executives leaving for Fanatics. A three-member arbitration panel unanimously rejected that argument, finding Panini did not willingly allow the departures and that only two of ten executive-level managers had actually left. The panel awarded Panini roughly $7.8 million and declared the licensing agreement remained fully in effect through the 2026 season.13Jus Mundi. Panini America Inc. v. National Football League Players Incorporated, Final Decision and Award The arbitrators specifically noted their ruling did not resolve the broader antitrust and tortious interference claims still pending in federal court.14CLLCT. Panini Wins Arbitration Ruling Against NFLPA, Awarded $7 Million
The Sales-Pitch Problem for Panini
Reporting by The Athletic in late 2025 revealed a 90-page confidential document Panini had prepared to pitch potential buyers. In it, Panini told prospective investors it was “capable of consistently developing appealing collections regardless of available and agreed licensing options” and that its “unofficial collections have proven to be capable of outperforming official products.” Some sources said Panini told buyers the company was worth more without licenses because it would shed those costs.15The New York Times / The Athletic. Sports Trading Cards: Panini and Fanatics
Those claims sit uneasily beside Panini’s courtroom position that “any firm that fails to win the rights to produce and sell trading cards for players of at least one of the Leagues is eliminated as a competitor.”16SI.com. Reports: Panini Providing Conflicting Financial Data in Card Business The sales documents also showed Panini’s actual 2023 EBITDA at roughly $447 million, more than 40 percent below the roughly $790 million projection the company had provided to Fanatics during the 2022 buyout talks. Panini’s counsel blamed the shortfall on Fanatics cutting production at GCP; Fanatics’ countersuit alleges Panini kept two sets of books and inflated figures to extract a higher buyout.15The New York Times / The Athletic. Sports Trading Cards: Panini and Fanatics
In March 2026, Fanatics moved to have the sales-pitch materials included in pretrial discovery, arguing they undercut the antitrust claims by portraying Panini as a “healthy competitor.”17mLex. Panini Pitch to Citi Could Undercut US Antitrust Claims, Fanatics Says Panini’s lawyers say seeking a buyer is prudent damage mitigation and does not contradict the claim that the company’s value has been diminished.15The New York Times / The Athletic. Sports Trading Cards: Panini and Fanatics
Related Suits That Are Not Part of This Case
Two other lawsuits often get lumped in with the Panini-Fanatics fight but are legally separate.
Wild Card v. Panini. On November 6, 2025, Tennessee-based Wild Card sued Panini in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Panini of the same kind of conduct Panini accuses Fanatics of. Wild Card alleges Panini entered “unlawful contracts, combinations and conspiracies with distributors and manufacturers” and, at an annual industry meeting, warned distributors that carrying Wild Card products would cost them their Panini card allocations.18Sports Business Journal. Trading Card Company Files Lawsuit Against Panini America19The New York Times / The Athletic. Panini-Wild Card Antitrust Lawsuit Panini moved to dismiss and to transfer venue in January 2026; on May 6, 2026, the case was transferred out of the Eastern District, and its current status in the new venue is unclear from available records.20CourtListener. Wild Card, Inc. v. Panini America, Inc., Docket
Consumer class actions against Fanatics. Collectors filed Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc. in March 2025, naming Fanatics along with the NFL, NBA, MLB, and their players’ associations and alleging a conspiracy to inflate card prices through exclusive licensing.21CourtListener. Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc., Docket On March 23, 2026, Judge Swain dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding it “actually impossible” for the plaintiffs to have purchased Fanatics-produced licensed cards when the suit was filed because Panini still held the relevant licenses. She called the pricing comparisons “unpersuasive” and the theory of harm “entirely hypothetical.” The dismissal was without prejudice.22Sportico. Fanatics Trading Cards Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal A second consumer suit, Jones v. Fanatics, Inc., was filed on July 14, 2025, has been accepted as related to the Panini-Fanatics litigation, and is assigned to Judge Swain; as of mid-2026 it remains in its early stages.23CourtListener. Jones v. Fanatics, Inc., Docket
Where the Case Stands Now
Panini’s NFL license expired on March 31, 2026, leaving the company without any major American league license while its antitrust suit grinds forward. Fanatics released its first licensed Topps NFL product, 2025 Topps Chrome Football, on April 15, 2026.24The New York Times / The Athletic. 2025 Topps Chrome Football Cards
Legal observers are split on Panini’s odds. William Kovacic, a former FTC chair, has noted that antitrust law does not inherently prohibit exclusive dealing, though the FTC has become “more skeptical” of such arrangements imposed by dominant players. Others point to the difficulty of defining the relevant product market: if a court reads the market broadly to include soccer cards, hockey cards, or non-sports products like Pokémon, Panini’s foreclosure argument gets much harder.3Bloomberg Law. Fanatics, Italian Rival Test Antitrust Law in Market-Share Fight
The next things worth watching are whether Fanatics appeals the July 2026 order to produce its league contracts without redactions, whether the sales-pitch materials Panini gave Citi become part of formal discovery, and whether Panini finds a buyer while the case is still pending. Trial, if it happens, is years away.