Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: Discovery stayed in card purchaser case against Fanatics, major sports leagues, (Oct 24, 2025)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

Strong arguments existed for either lack of standing or that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration.

In the putative class action brought by sports trading card purchaser Robert Scaturo against Fanatics, Inc., its related entities (together, Fanatics), and the major professional sports leagues for an alleged antitrust conspiracy to monopolize the market for trading cards, the federal district court in New York City has ordered discovery stayed. The motion to stay the litigation was brought by the defendants, who include Fanatics, Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the respective players associations of the leagues. The court held that Defendants showed good cause for a stay in discovery because they raised strong arguments that Plaintiffs’ claims are either subject to dismissal for lack of Article III standing and/or antitrust standing, or are subject to arbitration. Further, discovery would be costly and expansive and, at a minimum, should be coordinated with any discovery in the already pending consolidated class action against the Defendants. Moving forward with this case alone would not be an efficient use of judicial resources. Finally, a short delay of a few months, to await resolution of the pending motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration, would assist in potentially narrowing the claims at issue and the scope of discovery, and would not unduly prejudice Plaintiffs (Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02202-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2025)).

The complaint accuses Fanatics of a campaign to monopolize the trading cards market by inviting the major sports leagues to join in a conspiracy made up of “long term exclusive licensing contracts with all major sports leagues by promising them a share of the future trading card monopoly profits; and then weaponizing its resulting market dominance even before those agreements took effect to coerce market participants in an expansive scheme to systematically exclude from the market its only remaining competitor, resulting in fewer choices, lower quality, and higher prices for direct purchasers of NBA player trading cards, NFL player trading cards, and MLB player trading cards.” The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and requests treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-02202-LTS-VF.

Judge: Figueredo, V.

Attorneys: A. Luke Smith (Radice Law Firm, P.C.) for Robert Scaturo, Jonathan Madar, Joseph Davidov, Steven Mardakhaev and Scott Bubnick. Alicia R. Jovais (Latham & Watkins LLP) for Fanatics, Inc., Fanatics, LLC, Fanatics Collectibles Intermediate Holdco, Inc., Fanatics Holdings, Inc. and Fanatics SPV, LLC. Anjali Srinivasan (Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP) for Major League Baseball and Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. Meagan Kara Bellshaw (Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP) for Major League Baseball Players Association and MLB Players Inc. Bradley I. Ruskin (Proskauer Rose LLP) for National Football League. and NFL Properties LLC. Adam Dale (Winston & Strawn LLP) for National Football League Players Association and NFL Players, Inc. Benjamin Robert Walker (Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP) for National Basketball Association and NBA Properties, Inc. C. Scott Lent (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for National Basketball Association Players Association. George G. Gordon (Dechert, LLP) for OneTeam Partners LLC.

Companies: Fanatics, Inc.; Fanatics, LLC; Fanatics Collectibles Intermediate Holdco, Inc.; Fanatics Holdings, Inc.; Fanatics SPV, LLC; Major League Baseball; Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.; Major League Baseball Players Association; MLB Players Inc.; National Football League; NFL Properties LLC; National Football League Players Association; NFL Players, Inc.; National Basketball Association; NBA Properties, Inc.; National Basketball Association Players Association; OneTeam Partners LLC

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews