In messages Bigfoot Sports Breaks says came from its TikTok account representative, the rep agrees a Fanatics deal was “the only way to get unbanned.” The Fanatics agreement Bigfoot was then sent makes “no representation” about TikTok’s actions. Fanatics calls the suit meritless. Gambling Insider investigates.
A banned Florida memorabilia seller says its TikTok account representative agreed that signing over exclusivity to Fanatics was the only way back onto the platform, citing messages filed in federal court in Los Angeles.
In the Fanatics contract the seller says it received the same day, Fanatics makes “no representation” regarding “the actions of the Platform,” including whether TikTok would approve the seller to sell licensed memorabilia there.
The messages and the contract are exhibits to an antitrust suit that Bigfoot Sports Breaks LLC filed Sept. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against TikTok Inc., TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, ByteDance Inc. and five Fanatics entities.
Bigfoot alleges the exchanges show TikTok and Fanatics working together to steer independent sellers to Fanatics. Fanatics denies forcing sellers to do business with it and describes the lawsuit as meritless.
As of Oct. 21, no defendant had filed a response, and no proof of service appeared on the court docket.
TikTok Rep Said Fanatics Deal Was the Only Way to Lift Ban
Bigfoot, based in Largo, Florida, says it sold autographed NFL helmets on TikTok livestreams until TikTok permanently banned its account Sept. 18, 2025. The ban notice Bigfoot filed cites “multiple IP Policy violations” and lists trademark strikes claimed by the NFL.
In messages dated Sept. 22, 2025, Bigfoot’s principal, Brian Gualdiero, asked the representative whether the channel was banned “because we showed custom helmets on the videos.”
The representative answered “correct” and wrote: “Again, this isn’t coming from TikTok – this is coming from the IP owner.”
The messages were exchanged on Lark, a workplace app built by TikTok’s parent, ByteDance, which TikTok Shop promotes to sellers as a way to reach their account managers.
In a later exchange, after Gualdiero wrote that there had been “no sales since the ban,” the representative asked, in a message marked as edited: “Are you willing to sign over exclusivity to licensed product through fanatics?”
When Gualdiero asked whether that was “the only way to get unbanned,” the representative replied: “correct- as they are the IP owner and called in the violation,” adding that “this is not a TikTok violation.”
Image: Exhibit D filed by Bigfoot
The representative then gave Gualdiero an email address at Relics Ventures and offered a “connection email.”
In that email, dated Sept. 25, 2025, the representative introduced “another seller, Brian, with Bigfoot Breaks, who wants to start the process of getting unblocked and onboard with Relics to source Fanatics products.”
Answering Gualdiero’s questions the same day, a Relics representative wrote: “We are Fanatics’ Under Wraps distributor for Tiktok.”
He attached the Fanatics agreement, describing it as being for breakers “who want to only sell the licensed mystery boxes,” and said Fanatics “essentially vouches” for such sellers, “which is usually enough to get Tiktok accounts back up in short order.”
In a later email he wrote: “In my experience this is the fastest way to get back up and running. That’s why Tiktok sends people in your situation over to us.”
Image: Exhibit E filed by Bigfoot
In texts the complaint dates to the same day, the Relics representative priced a full-size Under Wraps helmet at $675, with a minimum order of “a case which is 72 units,” or $48,600 at that price. Gualdiero replied that the only way to get his business back was “spending $49,000.”
The Relics representative offered to “see about breaking one up.” Bigfoot says it refused to sign, and that the channel remains banned.
No Document Establishes That TikTok Required Fanatics Agreements
The messages link a Fanatics arrangement to reinstatement, but they do not establish that TikTok adopted an official policy requiring sellers to sign Fanatics agreements.
None of the exhibits is a TikTok policy, a TikTok notice or a Fanatics communication that makes reinstatement conditional on signing, and none requires Bigfoot to spend $49,000.
Relics’ own wording, that Fanatics’ backing is “usually enough” and “the fastest way,” stops short of the representative’s “only way.” The screenshots also do not independently identify the representative as a TikTok employee; that identification comes from Bigfoot.
Whether the representative was stating TikTok policy is the question the filings so far cannot answer. The four breakers who sued TikTok in the same court before Bigfoot make similar allegations that TikTok banned sellers, then pointed them to Fanatics.
TikTok did not respond to requests for comment made by email and phone.
Fanatics Agreement Restricted Licensed Sales but Required No Purchases
The contract, a Memorabilia Seller Agreement with Fanatics Mounted Memories LLC, which is not a defendant, applies its exclusivity only to memorabilia from sports licensors the seller chooses to buy through Fanatics.
For those licensors, the seller agrees to sell on TikTok only memorabilia bought from Fanatics, and Fanatics confirms to the licensors and TikTok that the seller’s products are properly licensed.
The seller “is not restricted from selling any products other than Exclusive Sports Licensor Memorabilia” and “shall not be required to purchase any Memorabilia from Fanatics.”
The agreement runs for a year and renews automatically. Fanatics can end it without cause at any time; the seller can end it without cause only after the first year. Disputes go to arbitration.
The agreement also makes “no representation” about TikTok’s actions, including whether the platform will approve the seller to sell licensed memorabilia. The disclaimer limits Fanatics’ contractual promises but does not establish whether TikTok separately required the agreement.
Image: Exhibit F filed by Bigfoot
In a statement provided to Gambling Insider by email, a Fanatics spokesperson said:
This is another meritless lawsuit from the same group of lawyers behind a series of similar suits. By its own account, Bigfoot was removed from TikTok over NFL intellectual property issues, and by its own complaint it never signed an agreement with Fanatics. Fanatics does not force anyone to do business with us. Our focus is on providing fans with authentic, licensed products, and we won’t be deterred by these lawsuits.
The spokesperson did not respond to questions about Relics Ventures or the agreement’s exclusivity clause.
Fanatics has made the same argument in court. In a March 23 letter filed as an exhibit in an earlier breaker lawsuit, Fanatics lawyer Lawrence Buterman of Latham & Watkins argued that “nothing in that agreement imposes a requirement on breakers to exclusively sell Fanatics products on TikTok.”
Without knowing Bigfoot’s situation, the Relics representative suggested its account may have been caught up in a crackdown on unlicensed custom helmets. Bigfoot says it never sold altered helmets.
Bigfoot’s Ban Preceded the Exclusivity Demand, Contrary to Its Complaint
Bigfoot’s own exhibits undercut parts of its complaint. They show Gualdiero discussing the ban with the representative by Sept. 22, 2025, and complaining of “no sales since the ban” just before the exclusivity question, yet paragraph 114 says the account was banned “after Plaintiff refused to accede to Fanatics’ demands.”
The chronology contradicts that account of the initial ban: Bigfoot was already suspended before the documented exclusivity proposal.
The suit names Hit Parade as Bigfoot’s helmet supplier in two paragraphs but cites The Real Autograph as a source in another, and calls NFL Properties “a Defendant herein,” although no NFL entity is a party to the case, the docket shows.
And paragraph 73 attributes the $49,000 figure to Relics; the texts show it came from Gualdiero.
Bigfoot’s lawyers at eJustice LLP did not respond to questions about the discrepancies.
Bigfoot’s lawsuit brings 11 counts under federal and California law, including antitrust claims. It seeks damages, reinstatement and an order invalidating the disputed exclusivity arrangement.
Bigfoot puts no figure on its losses, seeking damages “in an amount to be proven at trial,” tripled under antitrust law, along with reinstatement, a ruling that Fanatics’ exclusive contract is “unenforceable and void as against public policy,” and an injunction.
Four Earlier Lawsuits Allege Similar TikTok-Fanatics Referrals
Bigfoot is the fifth breaker to sue TikTok in the Central District of California since October 2025. Jeremy C. Shafer of eJustice LLP filed all five suits.
Judge Josephine L. Staton, who presided over the first, brought by GFC and Supply Inc., until GFC’s voluntary dismissal Aug. 14, took over the Bigfoot case Oct. 13 under the court’s rules for related cases.
The earlier lawsuits make similar allegations about TikTok banning sellers and subsequently directing them toward Fanatics. Those allegations do not independently establish that such a policy existed.
Bigfoot Challenges Gambling Enforcement, but Its Ban Cited IP Violations
Bigfoot sold helmets rather than trading cards, but in the format of a break: buyers pay a fixed price for a spot in a livestreamed opening of sealed product without knowing what they will get.
Bigfoot also asks the court to prohibit what it calls “unlawful and wrongful gamification violations (allegations of gambling)” that lead to strikes and bans. However, the notice filed as evidence of its own suspension cites intellectual property violations, not gambling.
The filed messages establish that a person Bigfoot identifies as its TikTok representative presented a Fanatics-linked agreement as necessary for reinstatement and referred the seller to a distributor offering Fanatics products. Yet the proposed agreement required no purchases and made no guarantee that TikTok would restore the account.
Bigfoot’s own exhibits also show that its ban preceded the documented exclusivity demand. The evidence supports the account of what the seller was told, but does not establish that TikTok and Fanatics adopted or coordinated a reinstatement requirement as company policy.
The post Breaker Says TikTok Rep Tied Reinstatement to Fanatics; Contract Makes ‘No Representation’ on TikTok appeared first on Gambling Insider.