Branded merchandise is at the center of a new proposed antitrust class action lawsuit aimed at retailer Fanatics, the NFL and all 32 teams.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 22, the suit claims that the NFL and Fanatics conspired to dominate the retail market for online sales of NFL-licensed merch.

The main plaintiffs, who consist of five consumers represented by various attorneys, are asking the court to grant their suit class action status and a trial. They also want a judge to declare the NFL and Fanatics’ alleged actions illegal and to enjoin the retailer and league from ever engaging in such activities again.

The plaintiffs are not yet asking for specific recompense for any alleged damages, but do ask the court for “further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.”

Two similar suits that had been filed in federal court in California were voluntarily dismissed on Friday, March 18. A third-party retailer on Amazon had filed one of the Golden State suits, while the other was advanced by consumers.

It remains to be seen how the New York-based case will play out. In the proposed class action filing, attorneys for the plaintiffs say the NFL, its teams and Fanatics illegally conspired to control the online retail market for licensed NFL gear in a scheme that had at least four components.

Firstly, the suit charges, the defendants colluded to boycott competing retailers who sold NFL licensed products through third-party online marketplaces, such as the Amazon Marketplace.

“This boycott eliminated defendants’ competitors who would have charged lower prices for NFL licensed products sold online,” the court filing alleges. “In so doing, the boycott removed the downward pressure on prices and margins that, absent the conspiracy, would have otherwise flowed directly from enhanced competition.”

Next, after “having greatly reduced the number of retailers in online marketplaces,” the NFL, its teams and Fanatics entered into exclusive arrangements that denied their competitors access to manufacturers and suppliers, according to the plaintiffs.

Once their dominant position in the online marketplace for NFL merch was cemented, the league, its teams and Fanatics entered into anticompetitive licensing agreements to further reduce competition, rather than compete with each other, the suit says.

Finally, the plaintiffs claim that the NFL and Fanatics conspired to further undermine other retailers’ ability to compete in the online market for NFL licensed products by forbidding those retailers from using NFL-related keywords to advertise or describe their product offerings. “The effect,” the suit says, “is to drive consumer traffic to defendants’ retail sites and product listings and away from those of competing retailers.”

The suit also asserts that in 2017 the NFL purchased a 3% stake in Fanatics for $95 million. “This meant,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote, “that as Fanatics’ value increased, so too did the NFL’s investment.”

Following the filing of a separate suit by American Needle Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the NFL’s previous licensing agreement with Reebok International Ltd. to market logoed team hats was not “categorically beyond” the scope of antitrust law. In that case, the NFL and plaintiff American Needle Inc. reached a settlement.

In the New York-filed case, the main plaintiffs are consumers Saul Maldonado, Dean Santos, Lesia Dunn, Kimberly Ann Marckmann and Louis Hibbs. They variously come from four states – California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas – and are seeking to represent other unnamed consumers as part of the class action.