"PSA parent company Collectors Holdings Inc faces proposed class action alleging acquisition of SGC and Beckett created an illegal monopoly, harming trading card hobby enthusiasts with higher prices and poor service standards.
Although PSA was the dominant player in the market, Defendants SGC and BGS served important roles as growing competitors that offered lower prices and higher quality services (usually through faster turnaround times for card grading) than PSA.
Rather than compete with SGC and BGS on the merits by decreasing prices and/or increasing service quality, Defendant Collectors acquired both companies to cement its monopoly power in the Relevant Market.
Collectors acquired SGC in February 2024 and BGS in December 2025. As a result of the Acquisitions, Defendant Collectors controls roughly 80% of the Relevant Market.
Following each acquisition, Defendant Collectors increased prices and decreased the quality of services for both PSA and the acquired company.
For example, following its acquisition of SGC, Collectors increased prices for SGC services by 20%, increased turnaround times for graded cards by as much as 400%, and reallocated significant assets from SGC to PSA to shrink SGC and turn it into a specialized boutique grading company, i.e., not a competitor to PSA.
*Through these actions, Defendants harmed competition and consumers. Not only did Defendants reduce the number of major independent competitors in the Relevant Market from four to two, but they also eliminated competitors that were putting downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on service qualityâ
*
The plaintiff is seeking to have this suit certified as a class action and is asking the court for several remedies including damages, forced divestment of SGC and Beckett, expenses and more.
This is cool I think but I canât imagine this going anywhere. Whatâs prolly gonna happen is they wonât get to the court case until a year from now, then because it was so long ago that they filed the case, theyâll settle on some cash for Rasmussen.
Usually, if I recall correctly, these things are done by the state calling them a monopoly/issuing the lawsuit, not just some guy whoâs mad that his rookie card lost the superbowl and went down in value because the turnaround times were bad.
Price increases to try and keep a hold on turn around times has precedent, PSA will easily be able to prove its a part of their pricing model and not a result of buying out competition.
Their own lawyers will know much more about the âmonopolyâ issue than this guy, considering they will certainly have considered that before even attempting to purchase those 2 companies.
This is just a dude filing a lawsuit for the sake of it
The idea that SGC (3% market share, according to the complaint) and BGS (5% market share, again according to the complaint) were âmajorâ competitors to PSA (72% market share, according to the complaint) is hilarious. Neither SGC nor BGS were exerting meaningful competitive pressure on PSA. Certainly not within Pokemon, at least. Canât speak to sports.
choices is doing a lot of work. In a properly functioning marketplace there would be 3-4 or more competitors that all carry the same brand premium, but thatâs not the case
Whatâs funny about all this is being a âmajor playerâ might only be PSA and CGC for some people, while others include the 1%-5% marketshare companies.
My industry, being at 20% marketshare is top dog. And we spend time testing the 4% marketshare companies as they are major competitors. Perspective is everything
Sgc had tripled their monthly output basically over the previous 12 months and a good amount of a vintage sports guys were using them. BGS wasâŚumâŚdead lol