Fanatics, Players Associations, and Leagues Win Legal Case Similar to Panini v. Fanatics

We still don't know what is to come in the Panini v. Fanatics case, but we may have a better picture after today.

A St. Augustine lawyer was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court in July. Marsha Sharlene Johnson of St. Augustine, was admitted to practice in 2012. | USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

In major breaking hobby legal news, this morning, Fanatics, along with the MLB, NFL, and NBA and their players' associations, won a court ruling in Jones v. Fanatics, the closest copycat case to Panini v. Fanatics, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denying claims of attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act and dismissing the consolidation case in its entirety, even before reaching discovery.

It was dismissed by Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the same judge in the Panini v. Fanatics case.  

What Was This Case?

This was the second legal ruling Fanatics has won this year. Earlier in 2026, the same court and judge dismissed Scaturo v. Fanatics class-action lawsuit which was for direct purchases (through Topps.com).

The ruling today dismissed a 13-count lawsuit against Fanatics, the player associations, and leagues that targeted indirect consumer purchases (say, through hobby shops and retail locations). This lawsuit was the consolidation of seven class-action lawsuits to narrow down the scope.

The dismissal from Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain was a decision that failed to show consumer harm.

From the decision: "Plaintiffs provide no market-wide analysis, data, or other evidence to support a finding of market-wide supracompetitive pricing. Their Reddit and YouTube sources, at best, convey the anecdotal experiences and opinions of different individuals."

More from Judge Laura Taylor Swain: "Plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate an injury for purposes of Article III standing through their related claim that they purchased NBA cards of reduced quality as a result of Fanatics cutting off Panini’s supply of player jerseys for use in certain premium cards. This is because Plaintiffs, again, do not allege what cards they bought, let alone that any named Plaintiff purchased a premium card that suffered from their described jersey problem. Without allegations suggesting that any named Plaintiff suffered an injury related to these allegedly degraded cards, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate an injury on these facts."

What Does This Mean for Panini v. Fanatics?

It remains to be seen what this means in the case of Panini v. Fanatics. However, given that the same judge will hear the case, it likely weakens Panini's case against Fanatics.

I'm not a lawyer, but it reads like the case against Fanatics was brought up hastily and clumsily, as the judge repeatedly had to say the plaintiffs did not actually suffer the consequences they alleged. Could another court case prove it? Who knows, but both cases brought against Fanatics didn't seem very strong. All while they weakened Panini's position in Panini v. Fanatics.