The trading card industry’s legal landscape took a turn this month as Wild Card Inc. filed an antitrust suit accusing Panini America of years of attempting to box-out emerging competitors.[1] The suit adds a second major federal case to Panini’s docket, as Panini is still in the process of asserting its own monopolization claims against Fanatics, Inc.[2] Those claims were filed in 2023.[3]
Wild Card is forced to operate differently than Panini because Wild Card does not hold any league or player union licenses.[4] So, Wild Card must sign individual athletes to deals, like in 2021 when they signed Trevor Lawrence prior to his rookie season and released cards featuring him in non-league branded apparel.[5] But Wild Card has argued that this model has been undermined by Panini’s pressure on distributors and manufacturers.[6]
Wild Card’s complaint alleges that, in 2021, Panini held a “closed-door” meeting with its distributors and warned them that carrying Wild Card would bring “consequences.”[7] Within weeks, four major distributors pulled out of profitable Wild Card orders despite strong demand and no performance issues.[8] Wild Card also claims that Panini leveraged industry clout to pressure manufacturers to not work with Wild Card. Wild Card claims that, as a result, they were forced to choose from low-quality options.[9]
Panini’s lawsuit against Fanatics paints an equally aggressive competitive picture. Relying on comments from industry experts, Panini alleged that Fanatics has exercised unprecedented vertical control in actions that include long-term exclusive licenses, acquiring Topps (a key player in the trading card market for years), buying a major card printing facility, and poaching dozens of Panini employees within a matter of days.[10] As Panini’s counsel put it (before the Wild Card suit), “Antitrust law isn’t a popularity contest . . . the issue is the effect on competition.”[11]
The timing of Wild Card’s suit is especially noteworthy. Panini’s exclusive license with the NBA expired recently, and its NFL/NFLPA arrangements terminate in four months.[12] And, the suit comes only three years after Wild Card sued Panini for allegedly selling cards that mimicked prior Wild Card designs.[13] The parties settled that case for $25 million.[14] Thus, the case enters the fray at a time when Panini’s own market leverage, and the legality of how it uses that leverage, is already under intense scrutiny.
As for the Fanatics suit, Fanatics’s motion to dismiss failed. Thus, the case is now in discovery with a trial unlikely to occur before 2027 (unless the case it otherwise disposed of). So, between the two active suits, Panini’s lawyers can look forward to simultaneously asserting and defending claims of substantially the same elements. With two federal cases unfolding at once, Panini is discovering that not every pack you open comes with the card you were hoping for.
[1] Daniel Kaplan, Panini Accused of Same Antitrust Violations It Leveled at Fanatics, Front Office Sports (Nov. 7, 2025).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Michelle Casady, Trading card company Panini America hit with monopoly claims, The Dallas Morning News (Nov. 11, 2025).
[8] Daniel Kaplan, Panini Accused of Same Antitrust Violations It Leveled at Fanatics, Front Office Sports (Nov. 7, 2025).
[9] Id.
[10] Ben Strauss, It’s Fanatics vs. Panini in a bitter fight to control the sports card industry, The Washington Post (Sep. 10, 2025).
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Daniel Kaplan, Panini Accused of Same Antitrust Violations It Leveled at Fanatics, Front Office Sports (Nov. 7, 2025).
[14] Id.
Leave a Reply