Man Wins Court Case Against Upper Deck for Expired Redemtions!

[JamesNevans]

By Chris Olds | Beckett Baseball Editor

A Michigan man took Upper Deck to court over redemption cards that were not fulfilled and won his case back in March, a $1,329 judgment.

But as of April 12, he had not been paid.

David Bailey, an Emmy award-winning chief investigative reporter for a CBS-affiliated television station, was the plaintiff in the case — and a collector of 2007 SP Authentic baseball cards. He said he purchased upwards of 10 cases of the product and opened them recently. However, he had no idea there were expired redemptions inside — and he took the card company to court when he did not hear from it when he was left empty-handed.

“My read of Michigan’s consumer laws suggests what they’re doing is illegal,” Bailey said. “Upper Deck ignored me, so I made good on the promise and sued them for all my expired redemptions — $1,300 worth on the low end of Beckett’s price [ranges]. I had a Roger Clemens/Derek Jeter and a couple of Tim Lincecum/Matt Cains. I really wanted the cards, not the cash.”



When the trial date in the Michigan District Court came on March 8, according to court documents, Upper Deck sent a representative who was not a full-time employee of the company. Bailey won by technical default because the state requires an employee present in the court.

An Upper Deck official declined to comment on the case.

“The judge right off the bat told [the Upper Deck worker] in Michigan he couldn’t represent UD at the hearing,” Bailey said. “But I asked the judge [Pablo Cortes] to hear the case, anyway, and he did. He compared the expired redemptions to lottery tickets … and said on lottery tickets, at least you know before you buy what the end-date of that game is.”

Upper Deck was required to pay $1,275 in damages plus $54 in fees within 21 days of the decision. That was March 29.

“I didn’t want the attention on the case until UD thumbed its nose up at our local justice system by not paying the judgement,” Bailey said. “It’s outrageous.”

Upper Deck, which has other court cases ongoing — including a trial where Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is suing for unauthorized use of his likeness that started today — has recently been taken to court by Major League Baseball and NFL Players Association. The NFLPA is suing for nearly $1.5 million in unpaid autograph fees for its players as well as unpaid royalties, while MLB is suing for more than $260,000 that has gone unpaid as part of the settlement in its 2010 trademark infringement lawsuit.

 

[Meliah]

First good point I've seen for having only Topps as the producer of MLB baseball cards in my opinion

 

[greyminis]

At least a judge ruled in his favor with a cash settlement. With Fleer all most people got were a bunch of junk cards that Fleer didn't feel they could sell at their bankruptcy auction.

These experiences should really drive home the problem regarding redemption cards. The hobby would be infinitely better without them and their spawn, the sticker autograph.

 

[cjay101]

First good point I've seen for having only Topps as the producer of MLB baseball cards in my opinion

Topps returns expired redemption cards with a big EXPIRED stamp on them. I think they are just as bad. The ONLY company to even make good on an expired redemption (and this was just a month or two after expiration) was Panini (then Donruss/Leaf/Playoff)

I would rate my experiences with the companies as such:

1. Donruss/Panini
2. Upper Deck
3. Topps

Upper Deck has never done wrong by me, but I've never submitted expired redemptions to them. Never had issues with any of their other redemptions though.

Donruss is a homerun or a looking strikeout. I've been helped with expired redemptions, but I've also gotten HORRIBLE replacements at least twice that were not even close to the level of the original card. Most recently, they had a player not sign (nice HOF FB auto /20) and the guy went out of his way to dig for Jerry Rice stuff I needed and called me back the next day with a huge list. I told him the one comparable I needed, and he sent BOTH.

Topps, nothing but bad really. I've had maybe 2 redemptions that actually showed up as promised. The others were replacements (again, crap players or multiple lower-end cards for what should have been one higher-end issue) as well as multiple returned 'expired' redemptions.

Just like earlier today, I was at my local Wal-Mart and they are selling 2008 Topps Chrome Hobby boxes on surplus. They have guaranteed autographs in there and I normally would JUMP at the chance to pick up HOBBY wax locally given I don't have a hobby shop within an hour of here. That being said, some of the most desirable/key autographs are redemptions which are expired.

I would HATE to pull a redemption for a Lincecum or Longoria rookie auto. Things such as that would make me highly consider to stop collecting period.

 

[valediction]

Topps returns expired redemption cards with a big EXPIRED stamp on them. I think they are just as bad. The ONLY company to even make good on an expired redemption (and this was just a month or two after expiration) was Panini (then Donruss/Leaf/Playoff)

I would rate my experiences with the companies as such:

1. Donruss/Panini
2. Upper Deck
3. Topps

Upper Deck has never done wrong by me, but I've never submitted expired redemptions to them. Never had issues with any of their other redemptions though.

Donruss is a homerun or a looking strikeout. I've been helped with expired redemptions, but I've also gotten HORRIBLE replacements at least twice that were not even close to the level of the original card. Most recently, they had a player not sign (nice HOF FB auto /20) and the guy went out of his way to dig for Jerry Rice stuff I needed and called me back the next day with a huge list. I told him the one comparable I needed, and he sent BOTH.

Topps, nothing but bad really. I've had maybe 2 redemptions that actually showed up as promised. The others were replacements (again, crap players or multiple lower-end cards for what should have been one higher-end issue) as well as multiple returned 'expired' redemptions.

Just like earlier today, I was at my local Wal-Mart and they are selling 2008 Topps Chrome Hobby boxes on surplus. They have guaranteed autographs in there and I normally would JUMP at the chance to pick up HOBBY wax locally given I don't have a hobby shop within an hour of here. That being said, some of the most desirable/key autographs are redemptions which are expired.

I would HATE to pull a redemption for a Lincecum or Longoria rookie auto. Things such as that would make me highly consider to stop collecting period.

My experience has been almost the opposite of yours
Topps always treated me fairly, sometimes the redemption took longer than I was expecting. The one they didn't come through on (Drew Storen Topps 60 auto from last years base set) they sent me an email asking if I wanted a replacement or would rather keep waiting. I chose the replacement and got a Justin Masterson auto.

Upper Deck as you've mentioned, never done wrong, but my biggest redemption (Nomar/Ted Williams Dual GU) took over a year to get to me and the Reggie Jackson autographs from 1995 were almost as long.

Donruss on the other hand...I remember the Elite redemptions and the 2001 rookies redemptions, both of which I got a redemption instead of a card, always a bit of a disappointment even if you know you could get them, but even more, they expected me to PAY THEM for the cards they weren't inserting in packs, the Donruss traded they wanted $25, and the Elite if I remember right was more than most price gougers charge on ebay for shipping today, and this was 11 or 12 years ago. The one expired redemption I ever have sent in was a Donruss card, expired by 3 days and they refused to honor it. Got me to stop buying their product. It was a shame, they put out some nice product. I haven't dealt with a redemption from them since it became Panini, so they may be better now.

 

[BoomerSooner]

Upper Deck just isn't going to survive much longer...

 

[David K.]

Good for him! Best regards, David

 

[budd2222]

If the players would sign and return cards on time redemption cards would not be needed.

 

[mrmopar]

I don't like redemptions myself, but I guess we take what we can get. Most players don't have any incentive to sign these days. An average player that plays for a few years can become a millionaire quite easily and stars are quickly multimillionaires in a year or two! Looking a those Topps contracts from as recent as 10-15 years where players got $75 for the use of their likeness is almost laughable, but most of those guys probably wanted to be on their own card more than the money represents. Eventually that thrill wears off though.

Say the company pays them $10K or $50K or even $100K to sign cards. That is pocket change for many of the better players. Hopefully those who sign for the most part appreciate the fans and the game and are doing it to give back, even if it is for some spending money. Others end up not caring or being jerks about it and we can't control that.

I hope the guy gets to collect that money and maybe even affects how redemptions are used (or hopefully not used) in the future. That would be a bigger victory than the cash.

 

[houbb]

Read in between the lines on this one. Upper Deck didn't send a full time representative? Why? Simple: they don't consider this a serious legal test. It's small claims court. This isn't even $1500 we're talking here. I wouldn't call this a death sentence for the company. Not by a long shot.

Upper Deck still has liquidity, and the means to challenge. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made those cards last year with MLBPA approval. The one's MLB is suing over. They rolled the dice on that one and lost. I expecdt them to try to reach a settlement with MLB and the NFLPA. If anything can undo that company it's the licenses. Not something like this.

 

[basebal1fan]

Interesting to see where this one goes. Good post!

 

[BoomerSooner]

Read in between the lines on this one. Upper Deck didn't send a full time representative? Why? Simple: they don't consider this a serious legal test. It's small claims court. This isn't even $1500 we're talking here. I wouldn't call this a death sentence for the company. Not by a long shot.

Upper Deck still has liquidity, and the means to challenge. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made those cards last year with MLBPA approval. The one's MLB is suing over. They rolled the dice on that one and lost. I expecdt them to try to reach a settlement with MLB and the NFLPA. If anything can undo that company it's the licenses. Not something like this.

They probably didn't send an real employee because the case was heard in Michigan. UD has offices in California and redemption services in North Carolina.The pseudo-employee they sent was a distributor. It would have cost them more to fly an employee out, put him up for any numbers of days, etc. Obviously, losing in small claims in Michigan would only cost them ~$1500 max. Yet the danger is the precedent it sets for future cases. I personally think that UD is in so much legal hot water, this was akin to a tick on a dog to them and they chose to mostly ignore it.
We all have our opinions, but all the signs are there that UD is going under. All these lawsuits will dry up any liquidity you think they have quickly, and I'm not sure why you think they have any- did the market for Tiger Woods autographs suddenly arise from the dead? Rumors are not always factual, but those we have heard of bounced checks to employees, layoffs, the hasty moving of redemption services to NC because they couldn't pay the rent in California, the hush-hush talks of bulk sales of inventory to Steiner, almost 100 different unfulfillable redemptions in 2011 alone(athletes didn't sign because they didn't get paid- they owe Burt Reynolds tens of thousands alone)- it all paints a picture of impending doom.
Would they like to settle? Sure. Would anyone who has already won in court settle? Unlikely, unless the reality is they won't get paid at all if they don't settle and the loser goes under and declares bankruptcy.

 

[JamesNevans]

While the case was headed to a default judgement, the judge heard the case and agreed with the plantiff that the manufacturer promoted the valuable hit aspects of the product which then did not reveal the limited redemption period. I really think this opens the door for companies to honor redemptions or pull the products, maybe be able to substitute a like kind value for ones truly out of stock, but this will put the companies on notice to not market product they don't have on hand.

 

[mattfieser]

I have been waiting for my 2010 Donruss EEE Bagwell redemption auto /35 since November of 2010. No responses to any of my e-mails.

 

[M's in 2006]

Being a collector, I would expect that you assume any redemption cards you get from a product you buy now, or sit on, that is YEARS old, would have EXPIRED redemptions. I think this trial is bogus, and really slowing down our court system. This guy probably wouldn't have had a case, had an UD representative showed up.

I understand trials for redemption cards you send in, that aren't redeemed, if they are sent within the 2 year (or so) redemption period. If you don't get your cards etc. But this trial was bogus.

Just my opinion

 

[JamesNevans]

Being a collector, I would expect that you assume any redemption cards you get from a product you buy now, or sit on, that is YEARS old, would have EXPIRED redemptions. I think this trial is bogus, and really slowing down our court system. This guy probably wouldn't have had a case, had an UD representative showed up.

I understand trials for redemption cards you send in, that aren't redeemed, if they are sent within the 2 year (or so) redemption period. If you don't get your cards etc. But this trial was bogus.

Just my opinion

That is the point though, nothing on the box or advertizing stated that redemptions were required to get the hits the company advertized! No company wants to put a disclaimer on their products that some hits require redemption since it would be bad for the initial sale of the product, but they can't have it both ways by stating they won't honor a product that they put out when they don't give an informed warning.

 

[valediction]

That is the point though, nothing on the box or advertizing stated that redemptions were required to get the hits the company advertized! No company wants to put a disclaimer on their products that some hits require redemption since it would be bad for the initial sale of the product, but they can't have it both ways by stating they won't honor a product that they put out when they don't give an informed warning.

Where do you draw the line? They don't advertise miscut cards either, so if I buy a 1982 Topps case and pull a bunch of miscut Ripkens, should they still have to replace them?

Upper Deck has not advertised this set for 5 years now. He most likely did not buy the cases from Upper Deck. They advertised it during the year of issue, from pre release until they moved to the next products. If he bought the cases without doing any research, they should have awarded him a flick in the forehead. A fair amount of product from that era had redemptions, and if you start buying 10 cases of 3-4-5 year old product without checking that, I never have liked the idea of having to protect adults from themselves.

 

[BoomerSooner]

Using that logic, the product itself would have to have a shelf date that "expires", just like a gallon of milk. If you bought a gallon of milk that had 1JAN10 stamped on it, the expectation of a consumable product would be low. But these are cards, which have an indeterminate shelf life, & can go on forever. Would you defer on buying a case of 1968 topps because they haven't advertised it in 43 years? No, you wouldn't. Because you know there is some intrinsic value to the contents. Same as any other card product, IMO.
IMO, it's the card companies responsibility to include the advertised item in the actual product, and if forced to fulfill the obligation by redemption, then the redemptions should carry on untill all have been redeemed. The only reasoning they use to not do that is lack of storage space for the redemption cards over time. They use them to fulfill OTHER redemptions or replace damaged goods. Steal from peter to pay paul in a way..
Not enough space to store all your redemptions, Topps? Then pull out all the stops and ensure the sigs are in the packs, then you will have zero worries about where to store them.

 

[valediction]

Using that logic, the product itself would have to have a shelf date that "expires", just like a gallon of milk. If you bought a gallon of milk that had 1JAN10 stamped on it, the expectation of a consumable product would be low. But these are cards, which have an indeterminate shelf life, & can go on forever. Would you defer on buying a case of 1968 topps because they haven't advertised it in 43 years? No, you wouldn't. Because you know there is some intrinsic value to the contents. Same as any other card product, IMO.
IMO, it's the card companies responsibility to include the advertised item in the actual product, and if forced to fulfill the obligation by redemption, then the redemptions should carry on untill all have been redeemed. The only reasoning they use to not do that is lack of storage space for the redemption cards over time. They use them to fulfill OTHER redemptions or replace damaged goods. Steal from peter to pay paul in a way..
Not enough space to store all your redemptions, Topps? Then pull out all the stops and ensure the sigs are in the packs, then you will have zero worries about where to store them.

I would check around, see what series the 68 Topps were, what was in there, and decide from there. Just like if I was dropping 4-5 figures on unopened cases of 'modern' cards, I'd check to see what was in there, what was redemptions, and have a realistic expectation going in before I just dropped the money.

Using your logic, if I had a box of 2001 Bowman Chrome tucked away that unbeknowst to anyone had a Pujols redemption inside, and my house burned down, Topps would have to sit on the card until they went out of business. What if the redemption was pulled in 2001 and the person already had bad experiences with redemptions and just tossed it in the garbage out of anger? What if a parent threw a kids cards away? What if an angry spouse/significant other burned/tossed/destroyed them? Are they supposed to advertise Bowman Chrome for presell, but not tell you who the autographs are because they haven't gotten the cards back yet? How long do they wait before getting legal action going for players holding up a product?

 

[mrmopar]

I think the biggest issue with redemption cards was the ease at which they have been used in the past. You (a card maker) advertises that you have X number of star signers in the product and use this information to boost sales of your product, then half of the players end up not signing for whatever reason. You still sell all the product under the assumption that all of the players signed.

Then, consumers start buying the product with the expectation that they might pull a Willie Mays auto or something similar as advertised. Their first shock is to beat the odds and pull a Mays auto, but find out it's a redemption card. No instant gratification, but at least I'll get it in 6-8 weeks! Then, after waiting 6-8 weeks, nothing comes and they begin to inquire. A loose lipped CSR lets it slip that Mays was being his normal cranky self and didn't bother to sign, but that they were working on it. Give them 6-8 more weeks and you'll have that Mays auto. 6-8 more weeks later, still nothing. Then you get tossed a bone for your "patience"...a Biff Pocoroba auto card. Hey, you'll still get your Mays. The Biff was for your "patience".

After 1.5 years of waiting, emailing, calling, complaining, etc., the company finally comes clean and admits that Mays won't be signing at all. But, hey, don't worry kids...we'll be sending you an "equal" value to replace the Mays. 6-8 weeks later, you receive a large package from XYZ card maker and out spills 15 no-name NBA patch/auto cards! Yes, the value is approximately the same, but you still feel robbed.

My personal opinion is that if redemptions have to be used in the future, that they be used sparingly and only if the company can definitely make good on their promise, otherwise it is all very deceptive, regardless of the reason for not honoring the redemption. If they can't, maybe they don't get to advertise X hits per box/case or that Y player is signing. That type of information should only be allowed if the company can deliver. It's false advertising otherwise.

On a related subject, the 1994 Score R/T September Call-Up is a great example of a redemption card that was a valid reason for being a redemption and also one that the manufacturer should have no reason to compensate buyers for after the fact. The company was waiting until a late season call-up made a splash and then they were going to make that redemption card. UD did the same thing as well in their Minor League set, with the DP trade cards of Rodriguez and Kirk Presley.

You couldn't advertise who it was going to be, because they didn't know at the time who might make an impact. Enter the strike and the season ends. Fans go elsewhere and people aren't buying the product. The card is made anyway (Alex Rodriguez) and some are redeemed, but not nearly as many as would have if the strike had not hit.

As much as I hate to admit it, that type of redemption falls into a different category and I don't think the company should be held responsible for expired redemptions. They were not waiting on the player to make the card and had full control over the production of the card. The strike was just an unfortunately timed event that ended up hurting sales and ultimately helped lead to many of those boxes not being sold and the cards not being redeemed.