There is a certain type of anxiety that permeates every sports card show these days. Collectors squint at corners and surface texture, lean in close over tables, take out loupe magnifiers, and tilt cards under the light at strange angles. To some extent, they have always done this. However, it now has a benefit that wasn’t present a few years ago. Everyone in the hobby seems to know someone who was burned, and the problem of counterfeit goods has gotten worse.
That reality is beginning to be reflected in the lawsuits. Counterfeit NFL rookie cards sold through online marketplaces are the subject of increasingly aggressive legal actions, with brand owners and licensing organizations fighting not only the anonymous foreign sellers operating phony storefronts but also the platforms themselves. This change, which has been developing for some time, significantly alters the nature of the battle.
For many years, the typical strategy was as follows: a brand owner would file what is referred to in legal circles as a “Schedule A” case, listing hundreds of storefronts that violated the law, obtaining a court order to freeze listings and assets, and hoping that would be sufficient deterrence. Seldom was it. According to a 2024 report from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, approximately 84% of counterfeit goods seized at U.S. borders originate in China. Counterfeiters operating out of China have an unsettling tendency to disappear and reappear under new aliases. IP lawyers have likened it to a game of whack-a-mole. It’s not overstated. It simply captures the essence of an annoying dynamic.
The direction of the legal pressure has changed. The notion that a marketplace has no accountability for what is sold through its platform just because it doesn’t technically own the inventory has come under increasing scrutiny from courts. Judges have begun to ask more pointed questions about the precise boundaries between passive host and active participant when a platform controls which sellers can list, what they can list, and how those listings are displayed through search and algorithm. Once reserved for more blatantly complicit parties, theories of vicarious and contributory trademark infringement are now finding their way onto the desks of major platform operators.
Observing the evolution of the litigation landscape gives the impression that the platforms had a limited window of opportunity to avoid this, and many of them failed to act quickly enough. A few have started to. Instead of waiting to be named as defendants, a few marketplace operators have taken what could be called a co-plaintiff stance, actively joining brand owners in lawsuits against counterfeit sellers. It’s a more intelligent role. Instead of portraying the platform as a possible co-conspirator, it reframes it as a victim and an enforcer. Additionally, it grants them standing to pursue direct damages, such as reimbursements they have already given to buyers who were duped.
This is especially important to the NFL and its licensing partners. Top draft picks’ rookie cards have actual monetary value, sometimes substantial value, and the market for authenticated cards has developed into something more like a legitimate alternative asset class than a nostalgic pastime. That market is negatively impacted by counterfeits on both a financial and psychological level. Once duped, a collector usually withdraws from the entire ecosystem or, at the very least, becomes extremely hesitant to purchase anything without third-party grading. Everyone in the legitimate supply chain suffers as a result of that hesitancy.
How courts will ultimately resolve the issue of platform liability in these cases is still up in the air. There is a genuine lack of clarity in the legal doctrine, and various circuits have come to differing conclusions regarding the level of control a marketplace must exercise in order to effectively make the sale alongside the third-party seller. The days of platforms focusing solely on the sellers and getting away with it seem to be coming to an end. The brand owners are well-organized, there is actual legal risk, and the pressure won’t go away.
Even though the stakes seem higher now, the practical lesson for collectors is still the same: buy from reliable sources, demand third-party authentication for anything valuable, and realize that a suspiciously low price on a highly sought-after rookie card is almost never a deal. Usually, it’s a warning.
