TikTok, Fanatics and NFL Accused of Antitrust Violations Over Memorabilia Sellers

A sports memorabilia seller has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit accusing TikTok, Fanatics and NFL entities of combining their control over online marketplace access and licensed football products to restrict independent sellers and steer more business toward Fanatics.

David Allan Skalsky and QCBRIPNSHIP LLC, which operated the memorabilia business Quad City Breaks, filed the case July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint names TikTok, parent company ByteDance, Fanatics and several NFL entities and claims their business relationships were used to limit competition in livestream sales of sports collectibles.

The dispute centers on an alleged arrangement among companies with different roles in that market. TikTok controlled whether sellers could reach customers through its platform, while Fanatics had extensive involvement in licensed sports merchandise and the NFL controlled valuable league licensing rights. Skalsky claims those separate forms of commercial power were used together against sellers who bought authentic merchandise from other sources.

Quad City Breaks was among businesses known as breakers, which sell sports cards and memorabilia through livestreams. Customers generally purchase a team, player, or other position before a seller opens sealed products on camera and distributes the contents according to the terms of the sale.

The format gained a larger audience during the COVID-19 pandemic, giving independent dealers another way to reach sports collectors and build businesses around livestream sales.

Skalsky claims TikTok later restricted sellers offering NFL products that had not been obtained through Fanatics. Independent dealers were allegedly led to believe that Fanatics held exclusive rights covering a broader range of officially licensed merchandise than its agreements actually allowed.

The lawsuit also alleges that access to TikTok became tied to doing business with Fanatics. Some sellers could remain on or return to the platform by agreeing to obtain merchandise through Fanatics and share a portion of their sales, Skalsky claims. Sellers unwilling to accept those terms allegedly faced account restrictions, reduced visibility, or removal.

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits agreements among separate businesses that unreasonably restrain interstate trade. Companies are generally free to select their suppliers, distributors and commercial partners, but an agreement can draw antitrust scrutiny when businesses coordinate in a way that significantly limits the ability of others to compete.

Exclusive dealing is an important part of Skalsky's claims. Agreements requiring a business to buy from or sell through a particular company are common and often lawful. Concerns can arise when exclusivity closes competitors off from enough customers, suppliers, or distribution channels that competing becomes substantially harder. Skalsky argues that access to TikTok's livestream audience was used as leverage to push sellers toward Fanatics rather than competing sources.

Antitrust law also distinguishes between injury to one business and injury to competition across a market. Losing customers, revenue or a valuable account does not by itself establish an antitrust violation. Skalsky alleges broader effects, including fewer independent sellers, reduced consumer choice, greater barriers for competing businesses and increased control over distribution by Fanatics-affiliated operations.

Quad City Breaks was among the businesses allegedly affected. Skalsky claims the company had reached monthly revenue of as much as $200,000 before repeated TikTok account restrictions beginning in late 2024. He says the loss of access to followers and the visibility the business had built on the platform contributed to its bankruptcy and the loss of his family's home.

Skalsky also brings claims under the Cartwright Act, California's main antitrust statute, which prohibits certain combinations of businesses that restrain trade or prevent competition. The state claim rests on much of the same alleged conduct underlying the federal antitrust case.

Other claims focus on how the restrictions were allegedly carried out rather than competition across the market. Skalsky accuses the companies of false advertising and unfair competition, based partly on statements concerning the scope of Fanatics' rights to NFL merchandise. He also alleges interference with business relationships and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Possession of an NFL license does not automatically establish that every lawful resale of genuine licensed merchandise must pass through the license holder. Skalsky claims independent sellers had obtained authentic goods through lawful channels but were treated as though selling those products on TikTok required a relationship with Fanatics.

Skalsky is seeking damages as well as court orders directed at the alleged business arrangements. His requested relief includes restoration of his TikTok account and prior platform standing, cancellation of disputed exclusive agreements, and an injunction barring the challenged conduct.