Trading Card Cos. Hit with Class Actions Over Purchase Requirement for Redemption Card ‘Contests’

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Trading card companies Topps and Panini America each face a proposed class action over their use of contest-like “redemption cards” as a means to increase consumer demand. 

A redemption card is a “wildcard” included in each pack that allows a holder to obtain a random specialty card through the use of a special code, the suits state. The specialty cards obtainable through redemption cards are touted as special, rare and valuable, as they could, for instance, be signed by a particular athlete, the cases relay. 

The lawsuits respectively argue, however, that the use of redemption cards to drive demand for certain packs amounts essentially to a contest through which a consumer can obtain a random, potentially valuable specialty card. According to the suits, federal and state law require that any person, regardless of whether they purchased a certain item, such as a trading card pack, be allowed to enter a contest that offers a chance to win a thing of value. 

The cases contend that by requiring a person to buy a card pack in order to obtain a redemption card, and by making it difficult to impossible for a non-purchaser to obtain a redemption card to essentially participate in the contest, Panini America and Topps have misled consumers into buying items they otherwise would not have had to buy, and at higher prices. 

Moreover, the lawsuits say that although “no purchase necessary” instructions are required to be equally prominent to other methods of entry for the so-called contest and cannot place a non-purchaser at a disadvantage relative to a purchaser, a person would nevertheless have to buy a card pack in order to see the no-purchase-necessary instructions. 

The complaints allege that when such a contest does not offer non-trading card pack purchasers the option to enter, it is considered an unlawful lottery. 

Topps and Panini America each fail to display no-purchase-necessary information in a clear and conspicuous manner to non-card pack purchasers, the lawsuits say.

“Someone who wishes to enter the contest could not purchase the Product, obtain the [no purchase necessary] instructions from the pack, and then return the Product, because returns for previously opened trading card merchandise is [sic] not allowed by merchants,” each case states. 

Each lawsuit contends that even when the no-purchase-necessary instructions are printed on the box of a card pack, it is still “onerous, oppressive, improbable, and impossible” for a non-purchaser to have an equal chance at winning the redemption card contest. 

The plaintiff in both suits claims she did not have to buy a Topps or Panini America card pack in order to enter the contest created by the offering of redemption cards but, “due to the practices described here, was not given another reasonable option.” 

The lawsuit against Panini America looks to cover consumers in the District of Columbia, Texas, Kansas, North Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, West Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Maine and Montana who bought trading card packs promising to contain valuable items during the relevant statute of limitations period. 

The case against Topps looks to represent all consumers in the District of Columbia, New York, Arkansas, Iowa, Utah and Montana who bought a Topps trading card pack promising to contain valuable items within the relevant statute of limitations period. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.