The Casey’s Distributing MLB lawsuit is a proposed class action antitrust case filed in June 2022 by an Omaha-based sports merchandise wholesaler against Major League Baseball, all 30 MLB clubs, and Fanatics, Inc., alleging they conspired to shut independent online retailers out of the market for licensed baseball merchandise. A federal judge dismissed the case in September 2024 without prejudice, meaning Casey’s can refile with revised claims. As of mid-2026, no amended complaint has been filed, and the docket remains technically open.
Who Sued Whom
Casey’s Distributing is a business-to-business wholesaler of licensed sports novelties founded in 1990 and headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. It stocks products from more than 50 manufacturers across MLB, the NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA, and MLS, and sells items like branded mugs, lanyards, and clocks to several thousand resellers through an online ordering platform.1Casey’s Distributing. About Us
The defendants are the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (doing business as Major League Baseball), Major League Baseball Properties, each of the 30 MLB clubs, and Fanatics, Inc. Fanatics is a vertically integrated sports merchandise company that manufactures, distributes, and retails licensed products, and it operates MLBShop.com along with the individual online stores for all 30 MLB teams.2ClassAction.org. Casey’s Distributing Inc. v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., Complaint
The complaint was filed on June 9, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Case No. 1:22-cv-04832.
What Casey’s Says MLB and Fanatics Did
At the heart of the complaint is MLB’s financial entanglement with Fanatics. MLB invested more than $50 million to become a minority equity shareholder, and sports leagues, players’ associations, and team owners collectively hold roughly 10% or more of the company.3Federal Trade Commission. FTC Public Comment Filing on Fanatics Casey’s argued that because the value of MLB’s stake grows as Fanatics grows, the league has a direct financial incentive to help Fanatics dominate online retail.4ClassAction.org. Major League Baseball, Fanatics Hit With Antitrust Class Action Over Licensed Apparel Sales
The complaint traces a series of deals that concentrated licensing authority in Fanatics. In 2015, MLB handed Fanatics control over its licensed-product e-commerce business through the 2033 season. A 2019 ten-year deal with Nike gave Fanatics the exclusive right to design, manufacture, and distribute Nike-branded MLB fan gear. In January 2022, Fanatics became MLB’s exclusive master licensee for hardgoods like bats and helmets in the United States and Canada, which meant Fanatics could decide which other companies could even obtain licenses to make competing products.5Bloomberg Tax. MLB Teams, Fanatics Inc. Accused of Online Merchandise Monopoly
According to Casey’s, MLB then adopted a policy barring licensed retailers from selling on third-party marketplaces like Amazon unless the league approved, at its sole discretion. Some licensing agreements allegedly required manufacturers to sell exclusively to Fanatics or lose their licenses. Casey’s said it had seen a written agreement directing licensees to participate in a “group boycott” of entities competing with Fanatics.4ClassAction.org. Major League Baseball, Fanatics Hit With Antitrust Class Action Over Licensed Apparel Sales The suit also alleged that MLB restricted the online advertising terms available to smaller retailers, pushing their sites lower in search results compared with Fanatics- and club-affiliated pages.2ClassAction.org. Casey’s Distributing Inc. v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., Complaint
The Legal Claims and the Class
Casey’s brought four claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act: conspiracy in restraint of trade under Section 1, and monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize under Section 2. The Section 1 claim rested on the alleged group boycott of independent retailers on third-party online marketplaces. The Section 2 claims targeted the licensing structure Casey’s said gave Fanatics durable market power over MLB-licensed apparel and hardgoods.
The proposed class covered all U.S. entities or persons prohibited from selling MLB-licensed products through third-party online marketplaces, or directly to Amazon for resale, under MLB’s marketplace policies from January 1, 2016, onward.4ClassAction.org. Major League Baseball, Fanatics Hit With Antitrust Class Action Over Licensed Apparel Sales One notable feature of the suit: Casey’s sought only injunctive and declaratory relief to “restore competition on TPOMs to the status quo,” not monetary damages.2ClassAction.org. Casey’s Distributing Inc. v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., Complaint
How MLB and Fanatics Responded
MLB called the case a “baseless challenge” to established rules for distributing licensed goods.6Law360. Casey’s Distributing Inc. v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al. Fanatics’ attorney, Christopher S. Yates, argued that the suit mischaracterized a “presumptively lawful vertical distribution policy” as a group boycott. He said “a property owner may license that property to whomever it wants” and “has the right to exclude everyone and handle distribution entirely itself.” Fanatics also contended that Casey’s lacked antitrust standing and had not plausibly alleged a conspiracy that harmed competition in a properly defined market.7ASI Central. Fanatics, NFL, MLB Want Court to Dismiss Merch-Related Lawsuits
The Dismissal
U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. verbally granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in September 2024. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Casey’s had the opportunity to file an amended complaint with revised allegations. As of July 2025, a written dismissal order had not yet been issued, and no amended complaint had been filed.8Sports Business Journal. Fanatics Scores Pair of Wins in Merchandising Lawsuits Alongside NFL, MLB A Fanatics spokesperson said after the ruling, “We’ve said all along that these lawsuits were meritless. We’re pleased that the court agreed and dismissed the complaints.”
The Parallel NFL Case and Judge Carter’s Reasoning
Casey’s filed a nearly identical antitrust suit against the NFL, NFL Properties, and Fanatics. That case was also assigned to Judge Carter and was dismissed on July 16, 2025, again without prejudice. Because Judge Carter had not yet issued a written order in the MLB case, the NFL ruling offers the clearest window into his reasoning.
Judge Carter wrote that while Casey’s may have suffered financial harm, it had not established “an injury that antitrust laws were designed to redress,” emphasizing that “antitrust law protects competition, not competitors.” He found that the NFL’s control over who can sell its licensed products is a lawful exercise of its rights as a trademark holder, and that consumers were not forced to pay higher prices because they could “simply find another way to buy.”9Sportico. Fanatics, NFL Defeat Antitrust Merchandise Lawsuit That reasoning closely tracks the grounds on which he dismissed the MLB case months earlier.
Did Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption Come Into Play?
One legal wrinkle sets the MLB case apart from the NFL version. Baseball has a judicially created antitrust exemption rooted in the Supreme Court’s 1922 decision in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League, reaffirmed in 1953 and again in 1972, when the Court called it an “aberration” but left it to Congress to change.10Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. MLB’s Antitrust Exemption Analysis
Whether the exemption reaches something as commercial as merchandise licensing is unsettled. Legal scholarship has noted that courts have generally refused to extend it to “outside” parties like concessionaires and merchandisers, and some scholars argue it should be limited to activities directly tied to providing games to the public.11UC Davis Law Review. Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption Scope In another case before Judge Carter, Nostalgic Partners v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, four former minor league clubs challenged MLB’s restructuring of the minor league system on antitrust grounds. He found the plaintiffs had adequately pled violations but dismissed the case anyway based on the exemption, writing that he was “constrained to apply” Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. The Second Circuit affirmed in June 2023.12Courthouse News Service. Nostalgic Partners LLC v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Second Circuit Opinion
The available record does not indicate that MLB invoked the baseball-specific exemption in the Casey’s Distributing case. The dismissal appears to have rested on the same standing and competition-harm grounds Judge Carter applied in the NFL matter. The exemption remains available as an additional defense if the case continues.
Where Things Stand
The docket remained active as of May 2026, with the most recent entry a May 22, 2026, order granting a motion for Paul Weiss attorney William A. Isaacson to withdraw as counsel for the MLB defendants.13PACER Monitor. Casey’s Distributing Inc. v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al. Casey’s continues to be represented by attorneys from Balestriere Fariello, Cera LLP, and Nematzadeh PLLC. Whether the company files an amended complaint that can survive the reasoning Judge Carter laid out in the NFL ruling remains an open question.