The Chase Is On: Trading Card Repacks Face Growing Legal Scrutiny

The trading card industry has experienced explosive growth for “repack” products—curated mystery packs, boxes, or sealed offerings containing previously opened and reassembled sports cards or trading card game (TCG) cards. Repacks are now sold through hobby shops, livestream platforms, online marketplaces, and dedicated repack manufacturers, often emphasizing high-value “chase” cards and investment-grade collectibles. 

At the same time, repacks have attracted increasing regulatory and litigation scrutiny. Questions surrounding gambling laws, lottery prohibitions, consumer protection statutes, advertising practices, and platform liability are moving from theoretical concerns to active disputes. Underscoring this trend, a qui tam lawsuit brought under the California False Claims Act against Whatnot and Fanatics Live was recently unsealed, and industry attorneys have begun advising box-breaking operators to ensure that all participants receive value in return, so the arrangement is not characterized as an illegal lottery. Businesses operating in the repack space should closely monitor these developments. 

What Are Repack Products?

A repack generally consists of cards that were originally pulled from manufacturer-issued products and then reassembled into new mystery packages by a third-party seller or distributor. Unlike traditional sealed products from manufacturers such as Topps or Panini, repacks are curated by private companies, breakers, or hobby operators. 

Common repack formats include:

• Sports card mystery boxes;
• Graded card mystery packs;
• Multi-sport repacks;
• Memorabilia repacks;
• TCG mystery products; and
• Livestream “instant rip” products. 

In essence, repacks are marketed around the possibility of pulling valuable "chase" cards while offering a lower-cost entry point than directly purchasing high-value collectibles.

Key Legal Issues

1. Gambling and Lottery Laws

The most significant legal risk facing repack operators stems from gambling and lottery laws. Generally speaking, states typically analyze whether an activity contains:

• Consideration,
• Chance, and
• A prize of value.

If all three elements exist, regulators or plaintiffs may argue that a product constitutes unlawful gambling or an illegal lottery. 

Traditional trading card products have generally avoided gambling classification because consumers receive tangible goods regardless of outcome. However, repacks often emphasize variable economic returns and high-value chase cards, creating additional scrutiny. The risk, at least perceptually, increases when repacks are combined with randomized team assignments and break formats. 

2. California's Sports Card “Grab Bag” Concerns

In addition to general prohibitions against unlawful gambling and illegal lotteries, a few states have also enacted specific statutory prohibitions that present additional risk. California law has become a particular focus of recent litigation.

California has enacted a statute specifically addressing sports trading card "grab bags." California Penal Code Section 319.3 supplements the general lottery definition in Section 319 and defines a "sports trading card grab bag" as "a sealed package which contains one or more sports trading cards that have been removed from the manufacturer's original packaging." That phrase—cards "removed from the manufacturer's original packaging”—squarely describes repack products, though the statute does not appear to reach a manufacturer's original, factory-sealed pack.

Notwithstanding Section 319.3's narrow focus on repacks of previously opened product, recent arbitration demands have been filed against card-breaking and repack platform Whatnot, alleging that its randomized sports card box breaks and repacks violate California's ban on illegal lotteries. The filings target both Whatnot’s repacks—cards previously removed from original packs, which arguably fall within Section 319.3’s “grab bag” definition—and its box breaks, where participants purchase a spot in the opening of an originally sealed factory product. For the box breaks, claimants rely on the traditional three-element gambling test, framing the distinction this way: "You're not buying cards. You're buying a spot that gives you a chance to get, after a wheel spin or a dice roll, a team, not necessarily the team you even want. So, that's where the chance comes in." The filings also distinguish sealed manufacturer packs—which typically publish odds and offer a “no purchase necessary” option—from repacks and breaks, which the complaints allege lack these protections, and raise additional allegations involving shill bidding, use of inside knowledge, and inadequate consumer protections such as self-exclusion or spending limits. Whatnot has denied the allegations, stating that “[g]ambling isn't allowed on Whatnot, and we strictly enforce this policy." These arbitration filings remain pending, with no adjudicated finding of illegality, but they underscore the importance of a well-structured product.

3. Consumer Protection and False Advertising

Repack operators also face potential exposure under state unfair competition and consumer protection laws. Potential challenges, include but are not limited to: 

• Inflated card valuation disclosures;
• Incomplete odds disclosures;
• Failure to publish complete checklists;
• Misrepresentation of chase-card availability; and
• Claims that products deliver “guaranteed value.” 

As repack manufacturers directly control the contents, an argument may exist that transparency obligations exceed those applicable to traditional manufacturer-issued products. In particular, a distinctive concern in the repack market is whether sellers possess undisclosed knowledge about product contents. Recent legal filings have raised concerns regarding:

• Seller knowledge of chase-card locations;
• Resealed or manipulated products; and
• Inadequate auditing procedures.

Even absent fraud, perceptions of informational asymmetry can increase reputational and litigation risk.

Practical Takeaways for Industry Participants

Companies offering repacks, mystery products, or related livestream experiences may wish to consider the following practices to help manage legal and reputational risk:

• Publishing complete and accurate checklists and odds disclosures;
• Ensuring pricing reflects the fair value of the cards included in each pack, consistent with case law holding that purchasers receive value for what they pay regardless of which card they draw;
• Avoiding marketing statements that emphasize chance-based rewards over the underlying product or that could be construed as gambling inducements;
• Reviewing state specific lottery and gambling statutes before launching or modifying repack, box break, and similar products;
• Monitoring ongoing litigation and arbitration involving repacks, box breaks, and livestream platforms, including the pending Whatnot and Fanatics Live matters.
• Consult with gaming attorney that is experienced in the field.

Conclusion

Repack products have become a mainstream part of the trading card industry, but the same features that drive consumer interest—randomization, chase cards, and value asymmetry—are increasingly attracting legal scrutiny. Recent litigation and heightened focus on transparency suggest that repacks may become a significant area of consumer-protection and gambling-law enforcement in the coming years. Companies in this space should evaluate their product design, disclosures, and marketing claims, and continue monitoring legal developments.

Should you have any questions regarding offering repack products, please do not hesitate to contact the authors: Don Lee at [email protected], Jason Hicks at [email protected], Glenn Light at [email protected], or Karl Rutledge at [email protected]. 
________________________________________

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Because lottery and gaming laws vary significantly by jurisdiction, companies should consult qualified counsel before launching repack programs.