PSA Parent Collectors Pushes Back On Antitrust Suit Over SGC, Beckett Acquisitions
PSA parent company Collectors Holdings Inc. has asked a California federal court to dismiss a proposed antitrust class action over its acquisitions of SGC and Beckett, or alternatively send the case to arbitration.
The lawsuit accuses Collectors of using the acquisitions to illegally maintain a monopoly in the trading card grading market, allegedly allowing the company to raise prices and worsen service by increasing turnaround times.
Plaintiff Michael Rasmussen filed the suit in April in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming Collectors Holdings, Professional Sports Authenticator, Sportscard Guaranty Corporation, and Beckett Grading Services as defendants.
Liz Morton
The lawsuit was not the first time Collectors’ recent acquisitions drew antitrust scrutiny as Congressman Pat Ryan also wrote to the FTC after the Beckett acquisition was announced, urging regulators to investigate Collectors Holdings over competition concerns in the collectibles grading market.
Liz Morton
Collectors has now fired back against the proposed class action with two motions filed June 8, seeking dismissal of the complaint and asking the court to compel arbitration and stay the case.
The arbitration motion argues Rasmussen waived his right to bring a class action under the terms of the Collectors User Agreement and had an opportunity to opt out of arbitration within 30 days, but did not do so.
The company also says an arbitrator, not the court, should decide whether Rasmussen’s claims fall within the scope of that agreement. If granted, the proposed class action may be paused or removed from court before the judge considers the broader antitrust allegations.
In the motion to dismiss, Collectors argues Rasmussen’s lawsuit fails because the complaint does not plausibly connect any alleged price increases or longer turnaround times to the acquisitions themselves.
“The Complaint is long on rhetoric but devoid of substance,” Collectors’ attorneys wrote, characterizing the suit as an attempt to challenge “two small, unremarkable acquisitions” in the trading card authentication and grading business.
Collectors says the plaintiff’s theory relies too heavily on timing, arguing that the complaint points to price increases and service changes after the acquisitions without showing those changes were caused by reduced competition.
Against that backdrop, Plaintiff’s entire theory rests on a rudimentary logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). But the antitrust laws and pleading standards under Twombly require more.
The company’s primary defense is that the grading market has seen explosive demand, creating capacity constraints that naturally affect both price and turnaround times.
Collectors points to the complaint’s own allegations that the card grading market is “rapidly growing” and that expanding grading operations takes “significant time and resources” because grading must be performed by trained and experienced professionals.
In this environment, acquiring smaller companies to increase capacity is a textbook example of a procompetitive response, not an antitrust violation.
That framing goes directly to the heart of the case: Rasmussen alleges SGC and Beckett were important independent competitors that helped keep pressure on PSA’s pricing and service quality. Collectors says the acquisitions were instead a way to meet rising demand in a market where output has continued to grow.
“Equally telling is what does not appear in the Complaint,” Collectors argued.
Put simply, Collectors is saying Rasmussen has not alleged the kind of facts that would show the acquisitions reduced competition in the real world.
The company says the complaint does not allege that Collectors shut down SGC or Beckett, fired graders after the acquisitions, reduced BGS output, controlled CGC’s pricing or output, or prevented CGC and other competitors from expanding capacity.
Collectors’ position is that these are not accidental omissions. Rather, the company argues those facts are missing because they cannot be plausibly alleged.
Collectors also points to PSA’s previously announced expansion plans, including investments in operations, grader training, technology and hiring, as facts it says undercut Rasmussen’s theory that the acquisitions reduced output.
The motion also challenges the way Rasmussen defines the relevant market. The complaint focuses on card grading services in the United States, but Collectors says the plaintiff has not adequately explained why competitors outside the U.S. should be excluded, particularly when cards are bought and sold globally through online platforms like eBay.
Collectors also questions the market share calculations in the complaint, arguing the figures appear to be based only on four companies: PSA, SGC, Beckett, and non-party Certified Guaranty Company.
According to Collectors, that does not establish PSA’s share of the entire relevant market.
The original complaint alleged PSA controlled roughly 72% of the market before the acquisitions, with SGC at about 5%, Beckett at about 3%, and CGC at about 18%.
Collectors responds that the complaint does not actually establish PSA had 72% of the entire relevant market, only that PSA graded 72% of the 26.6 million cards graded by PSA, CGC, SGC and Beckett.
Rasmussen claimed Collectors’ acquisitions increased its share to roughly 80%, leaving CGC as the only other major grading company identified in the complaint.
Collectors takes aim at that argument too, saying the complaint does not explain why CGC could not expand to constrain any alleged anticompetitive conduct. The motion notes the complaint itself describes SGC as having significantly increased output before the acquisition, which Collectors says undercuts the claim that competitors could not expand in response to demand.
The company also says Rasmussen has not alleged enough details about his own alleged injury to maintain the case.
Plaintiff has not alleged which service level he used, when he did so, what price(s) he paid, or any facts showing that his purchase price(s) or turnaround time(s) were allegedly inflated as a result of the acquisitions.
Collectors further argues Rasmussen lacks standing to sue SGC or Beckett because he does not allege he ever submitted cards to either company. For Beckett, Collectors says Rasmussen’s account history allegedly shows only one PSA submission in October 2025, which was before Collectors acquired Beckett in December 2025.
The motion also attacks Rasmussen’s request for extraordinary injunctive relief, including forced divestiture of SGC and Beckett. Collectors says Rasmussen waited too long to challenge the deals, particularly the February 2024 SGC acquisition, and that the companies have already integrated operations in ways that would make unwinding the acquisitions prejudicial.
Collectors also argues that the alleged harms of higher prices and longer turnaround times are monetary injuries that can be addressed through damages, rather than irreparable harm justifying divestiture.
The court has not yet ruled on either motion. Both motions are currently set to be heard on September 11, 2026, before Judge John W. Holcomb in the Central District of California.
The case is Rasmussen v. Collectors Holdings Inc. et al., case number 8:26-cv-00897, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Download Rasmussen's full initial complaint:
Collectors' Motion to Compel Arbitration:
Collectors' Motion to Dismiss:
