5BTC or 111% + 111 Free Spins!
New players only. Exclusive 111% Welcome Bonus + 111 Free Spins
California lawsuits are putting fresh pressure on Whatnot over the way sports card breaks are sold on the platform. Plaintiffs say the format crosses into illegal gambling, while the company rejects that claim and says gambling is not allowed on the site.
Good to Know
A legal fight in California is now centered on one of the most popular parts of the modern sports card market. Rather than targeting normal card sales, the lawsuits focus on live breaks and repacks, where buyers pay before knowing what cards they will actually receive.
That distinction matters. Plaintiffs are not challenging direct card purchases where the item is known up front. Instead, they are going after the random format tied to unopened boxes and repack products. In those breaks, customers commit money first, then a streamer opens the product live, and the final value can swing sharply depending on what comes out.
According to the lawsuits, that setup looks less like retail and more like a lottery. Buyers are paying for a chance at something valuable, while outcomes remain unknown until the pack is opened on stream. Plaintiffs argue that structure violates state rules against illegal lotteries.
Whatnot is a major force in the space. The platform recorded more than $8 billion in sales in 2025 and sells over six million trading cards each month. That scale is part of why the case could matter far beyond one company. A win for plaintiffs could reshape how live card breaks are run across the wider hobby.
The complaints hit hard on how the platform presents itself. “Whatnot represents that it operates a ‘marketplace’ where live shopping helps connect ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers.’ This is a false front,” the plaintiffs in the cases note, according to The Athletic.
The filing goes further. “Functionally, Whatnot operates an unregulated online casino where it exploits its customer base by encouraging compulsive spending, and in the process, generates billions in revenue without providing the safeguards required of regulated gambling operations.”
That argument is backed by addiction claims from people involved in the cases. Attorney Paul Lesko told The Athletic that several clients were pulled in by the randomness and the rush tied to the bidding and reveal process. “Our clients had quickly gotten addicted to it,” he said. “… At some point, they even stop caring about the cards. It’s just that dopamine hit from bidding and actually winning an auction to win a spot for the potential to get a team that they want.”
Repacks sit at the center of the controversy too. Unlike factory-sealed products, repacks are assembled by operators from cards they have already gathered, then sold again for break-style reveals. Critics say that adds another layer of concern because the product exists mainly for randomized resale.
Plaintiffs are asking for several remedies. They want restitution, warnings on future breaks, spending limits, punitive damages, and a court declaration that the challenged activity is unlawful.
Whatnot is pushing back. The company denied that it is running illegal gambling through its platform. In a statement to The Athletic, it said: “We absolutely reject the characterization in this complaint.” The company added: “Gambling isn’t allowed on Whatnot, and we strictly enforce this policy.”