Civil Liability in Trading Card Games Grading: The Legal Guide for Restorers, Dealers and Collectors
Civil Liability in Trading Card Games Grading: The Legal Guide for Restorers, Dealers and Collectors.
By Alberto Agostini, Co-founder of Studio Agostini & Kasapoğlu, an international boutique law firm based in Bologna and Ankara, specialising in collectibles, memorabilia and trading card games law.
At a glance
The global market for collectible trading cards – Pokémon, Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, One Piece Card Game and other trading card games (TCG) – has reached an estimated turnover in the tens of billions of dollars, with dynamics that in several respects resemble those of financial markets. The growth of the sector has brought with it the consolidation of technical cleaning and restoration practices and grading procedures (certification and assessment by specialised private entities), as well as the rise of the figure of the dealer, the intermediary between collectors and grading companies.
All activities that generate complex legal relationships and that, if performed defectively, may expose operators to significant litigation.
This article reconstructs, in operational terms, the scope of civil liability that Italian law attaches to restorers and dealers, and identifies the boundaries within which limitation-of-liability and exclusion clauses commonly found in industry terms remain valid.
Table of Contents
Restoration of Collectible Cards: Between Phenomenon and Law
The Liability of the Card Restorer
The Liability of the Dealer in the TCG Market
Closing Remarks and Operational Guidelines
Restoration of Collectible Cards: Between Phenomenon and Law
In today's market, collectible trading cards – hereinafter also "TCG" – occupy a grey area between objects of artistic interest and speculative assets.
Unlike classical collecting (numismatics, philately, fine arts), where attention focuses on historical, cultural and aesthetic value, modern collectible cards exhibit a dual nature: on the one hand, items intended for play and aesthetic appreciation; on the other, assets endowed with intrinsic patrimonial value.
In this perspective, "card treatment" – including cleaning and restoring operations, in view of subsequent grading – has become a consolidated practice among collectors, aimed at enhancing the item's value before placing it on the market.
Whereas traditional artistic restoration is grounded in preservation and authenticity (as in the principles of the 1964 Venice Charter), in the case of collectible cards the technical intervention is markedly functional: it aims to improve the card's "presentability" and conservation status, often in anticipation of grading (to obtain a higher score) and thereby increase its economic value.
The "Altered" Risk and the Law
The technical process, however, is not risk-free. A poorly executed cleaning or restoration may significantly compromise the card's material integrity, even altering its original profile.
Grading companies – tasked with authenticating the originality of cards – generally view such practices unfavourably and have identified a series of cases in which the "treatment" is so invasive as to compromise genuineness. Such interventions fall, in classificatory terms, under the heading of "altered" cards and entail, in commercial practice, severely penalising effects. An altered card, even if in good condition, is perceived as no longer authentic in its original configuration and undergoes a drastic reduction of its market value. In many cases, the market price approaches zero.
The circulation of cards subject to cleaning or restoration – whether destined for grading, resale/swap (in industry jargon, "trade") or merely collectible holding – translates into a web of complex and heterogeneous contractual relationships, generating professional liabilities which, if not properly regulated, may expose the parties to significant litigation.
This article focuses, in particular, on the liability of the technician responsible for cleaning and restoration operations, and on that of the so-called "dealer", the operator who acts as an intermediary between the cardholder and the grading companies and, in practice, performs at least cleaning activities.
In this context, Italian civil law – even in the absence of ad hoc sector-specific rules – provides the tools to assess and delimit the obligations of those who operate professionally in the TCG sector.
The Liability of the Card Restorer
The cleaning and restoration of collectible cards, even when performed informally, constitutes for all purposes a professional service. It falls within the scope of the contract for services (contratto d'opera) governed by Article 2222 of the Italian Civil Code and entails specific obligations on the operator, in light of the result concretely expected.
Such result generally consists in improving the card's conservation and aesthetic state through the removal of superficial imperfections and structural defects, in view of grading or sale.
Professional Diligence and Disclosure Duties
Even in the absence of written formalisation, the activity entails the application of qualified diligence, to be assessed under Article 1176, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, taking into account the professional nature of the service.
The operator is required to apply the expertise demanded by the specificity of the intervention, considering not only the material on which they act (laminated cardstock, holographic supports, sensitive inks) but also and above all the purposes stated by the client. Where the card is treated in view of grading, it is reasonable to expect the operator to take into account the standards adopted by the principal grading companies (PSA, CGC, Beckett, and the Italian GRAAD and AiGrading) and to avoid, even potentially, interventions that may result in an altered designation or preclude a regular assessment.
This implies, in concrete terms, the obligation to inform the client in advance about the requested treatments, the related risks and the possible consequences, especially where the intervention presents margins of uncertainty or irreversibility. The absence of informed consent, or the execution of treatments not agreed upon, may give rise to professional liability.
Defects in the Work and Limitation Periods
Any damage caused to the card – whether material (haloes, improper pressings, dullness, fading) or functional (the assignment of altered status) – falls within contractual liability under Articles 1218 and 1176 of the Civil Code. This framework must be integrated with Article 2226 of the Civil Code, which specifically governs defects or non-conformities in the executed work.
The rule provides that, once the service is accepted (even tacitly, for example by accepting redelivery of the card without observations), the provider is released from any liability for defects "known or easily recognisable" by the client at the time of redelivery, unless they were "fraudulently concealed". For defects not immediately perceivable, the law requires the client to report non-conformities or defects within eight days of their discovery, on pain of forfeiture of the right to damages; in any event, the action is barred after one year from the delivery of the work.
These time limits – eight days for reporting, one year for the action – apply exclusively to defects in the work in the strict sense. For damages arising from autonomous conduct of negligence, breach of disclosure duties, custody or protection, the ordinary ten-year limitation period under Article 2946 of the Civil Code applies.
It is therefore incumbent upon the client, once the card is returned, to inspect it carefully and report any anomaly without delay. Otherwise, even a non-compliant intervention may be deemed validly accepted, with consequent release of the restorer.
Exclusion and Limitation of Liability Clauses
Particular attention should be paid to exclusion and limitation of liability clauses, frequently used by service providers in dealings with wide and undifferentiated clientele through standardised forms, pre-compiled disclosures or digital terms.
On the regulatory level, Article 1229 of the Civil Code declares null and void any agreement that excludes or limits the debtor's liability for wilful misconduct or gross negligence. This is a mandatory limit which invalidates any release clause that purports to exempt the provider for serious errors attributable to manifest incompetence (use of solvents notoriously incompatible with the card material, application of excessive heat on the holographic surface, failure to protect the card during storage).
Where limitation clauses are unilaterally prepared by the restorer – in the form of "service terms" or "terms and conditions" – the regime of general contract terms under Articles 1341 and 1342 of the Civil Code applies. These provisions require that clauses limiting liability, imposing forfeitures, or attributing unilateral advantages (so-called "unfair terms") be subject to specific written approval, on pain of ineffectiveness. The mere sending of a link or a QR code, unaccompanied by specific written subscription, will not suffice.
Where the service recipient is a consumer – a person acting "for purposes unrelated to their economic or professional activity" – the enhanced protections of the Italian Consumer Code apply. Article 33 considers unfair (and therefore null) all clauses that, although prepared in general terms, determine a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. The same article contemplates a "grey list" of clauses presumed to be unfair, whose invalidity may be excluded only if the trader proves they were subject to specific individual negotiation.
It is not sufficient for the client to have signed a pre-printed form or clicked a box online: there must have been real and documented discussion of the clause's content.
A rule potentially relevant, although placed within the framework of the intellectual contract for services, is Article 2236 of the Civil Code, which provides for attenuated liability for the service provider called to solve problems of special difficulty: in such cases, the provider is liable only for wilful misconduct or gross negligence. It is legitimate for restorer and client to expressly agree that certain cleaning or restoration interventions are to be considered of particular difficulty and that any liabilities are limited to cases of wilful misconduct or gross negligence.
In conclusion, the limitation of the restorer's liability is possible within precise boundaries, in compliance with the forms and protections provided by civil and consumer law: each clause must be carefully assessed, both in content and in the manner of acceptance.
The Liability of the Dealer in the TCG Market
In the TCG landscape, the figure of the "dealer" occupies a central position in the process of card valorisation. The term refers, in descriptive terms, to the operator who offers structured intermediation services towards grading companies, combining to a variable degree three functions: the receipt and custody of cards conferred by clients; the logistical and documentary management of shipment to the grading houses and of subsequent return; and the performance of accessory technical activities (cleaning and restoration) prior to shipment.
Dealers frequently present themselves as "mere intermediaries" between client and grading houses, relegating the technical-material component of their service to a secondary role. In reality, the actual role is far more articulated: the dealer takes physical possession of the cards, handles them, prepares them for shipment, sometimes subjects them to cleaning or restoration, and manages their outbound and return flow with carriers.
The result is a network that cannot be reduced to mere intermediation, but to a bundle of complex contractual relationships.
Mandate, Bailment, Service Contract, Transport: A Mixed Contract
The management element refers, by its structure, to the mandate governed by Articles 1703 ff. of the Civil Code; this core is joined by a material component attributable to bailment under Articles 1766 ff. of the Civil Code; the technical-operational dimension relating to cleaning and restoration activities, typical of the contract for services under Article 2222 of the Civil Code (or, in more organised cases, of the contract for works under Article 1655 of the Civil Code), is added when present; the whole grafted onto carriage and insurance relationships entered into by the dealer with third-party carriers.
The correct framing of these elements is decisive for understanding the extent of the dealer's contractual obligations and the validity of the exclusion or limitation clauses frequently found in their terms.
The core of the dealer/client relationship is generally articulated around a mandate, more or less formalised, having as its object the sending of cards to the grading house according to specific parameters. Article 1710 of the Civil Code requires the mandatary to perform the assignment with the diligence of a good professional, complying with the instructions received and safeguarding, at every stage, the principal's interests. In practice, this means ensuring the correct identification of the cards (consistent with the submission forms), choosing the service in accordance with the client's preferences and verifying the policies of grading companies. Supervening events (tariff changes, value revisions, supplementary requests) must be communicated promptly to the client: failure to inform constitutes in itself a breach of the mandatary's disclosure duties.
Custody and Liability for Auxiliaries
From the moment the cards enter the dealer's availability, the latter assumes obligations of conservation and protection of the asset, attributable to the logic of bailment. The required diligence is qualified professional diligence under Article 1176, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 1768 of the Civil Code, and extends to storage methods, packaging systems (penny sleeve, toploader, card saver) and stock management before and after return from the grading house.
When the dealer combines forwarding with cleaning and restoration activities, they operate as a service provider (or contractor) and are liable under the same framework already outlined for the restorer.
In practice, the dealer frequently relies on internal or external collaborators (aggregators, collection points, technical centres) for material cleaning and restoration activities prior to grading. In such cases, Article 1228 of the Civil Code applies, according to which the debtor is also liable for the wilful or negligent acts committed by the auxiliaries of whom they have availed themselves in performance. The rule, of general scope, operates whether the material treatment of the card has been performed by the dealer's internal personnel or whether the intervention takes place at external facilities acting on their behalf.
It follows that any damage caused by the appointed restorer is attributed directly to the dealer, regardless of internal organisational distinctions or the degree of autonomy of the external structure involved.
International Shipments and Carrier Liability
One of the most delicate aspects of the dealer-client relationship concerns the management of shipments, articulated in three distinct moments: the initial sending of the cards from the client to the dealer; the subsequent forwarding (often international) from the dealer to the grading house; the return shipment to the client.
The terms of the principal dealers outline a recurring structure: the sender is required to use suitable packaging and tracked or insured shipping services; in parallel, it is stated that any damage or loss occurring during the initial shipment to the dealer is not attributable to the intermediary.
Such an arrangement is consistent with the normal allocation of transport risks: until the moment the dealer receives the goods, they are neither bailee nor able to intervene on the modalities of the transfer. Until formal delivery, the risk remains with the sender.
The regime changes, however, from the moment the cards enter the dealer's availability. For shipments organised by the dealer towards the grading company or towards the client, a distinct regime applies, in which the dealer's own obligations coexist with the liability of the appointed carrier.
Under Article 1693 of the Civil Code, the carrier is liable, save for force majeure, for the loss and damage of goods from the moment they receive them in delivery and until redelivery to the consignee. This implies that, once the parcel has been entrusted to the carrier chosen by the dealer, the transport risk falls primarily on the carrier.
This principle does not, however, release the dealer from their own obligations: they remain under a duty to select a reliable carrier, prepare adequate packaging and correctly indicate the value and declarations required. Incorrect declaration of value or failure to activate the insurance options requested by the client may result, in the event of a loss, in a drastic reduction of the compensation recoverable from the carrier and constitutes, in itself, autonomous fault of the dealer.
Dealer Exclusion Clauses: The Boundaries of Validity
Many regulatory clauses provide that, absent supplementary insurance chosen by the client, the dealer "shall in no case be liable" for losses, damages or thefts during shipments. Such provisions require careful scrutiny in light of Article 1229 of the Civil Code.
Clauses purporting to release the dealer from liability even when the damage derives from their own serious omissions cannot be considered valid: non-compliant packaging, failure to activate a promised insurance, choice of notoriously unreliable carriers, failure to transmit necessary documents, omission of procedures required by the grading company.
Conversely, clauses are admissible that allocate economic risk within certain thresholds, subject to the purchase of additional insurance for full coverage, provided that the limitation does not extend to cases of gross negligence by the dealer and is formulated in clear, transparent and proportionate terms.
In summary, a distinction must be drawn between the legitimate allocation of value risk – modulable depending on the insurance options chosen – and the inadmissible ex ante elimination of all liability of the intermediary, which would neutralise the substantive role of the dealer and hollow out the client's protection.
Closing Remarks and Operational Guidelines
The legal reconstruction outlined allows us to delineate the minimum perimeter of liability that falls on operators professionally active in the TCG landscape and, in particular, on restorers and dealers.
This is a sector that, although largely driven by private regulations, spontaneous practices and non-uniform operational solutions, requires a legal framework capable of governing its growing economic and technical complexity. Common Italian law, even in the absence of ad hoc sector-specific rules, offers tools fully adequate to qualify these relationships, identify the parties' obligations and allocate the risks arising from card treatment and movement.
The Centrality of Contractual Framing
The activity of the restorer falls, in most cases, within the paradigm of the contract for services under Article 2222 of the Civil Code (or, in more structured cases, of the contract for works); the activity of the dealer is articulated around a core of mandate, enriched by elements of bailment, service provision and transport.
The new paradigms of the TCG collecting world are not without legal protection, but are grafted onto the general categories of contract law.
As to the restorer, they are bound by a dual order of obligations: on the one hand, to perform the service with expertise adequate to the delicacy of the support and the stated purposes; on the other, to inform the client about foreseeable risks and possible consequences in terms of altered status, loss of perceived authenticity or economic depreciation.
In parallel, the figure of the dealer presents a higher level of complexity. The notion, frequently conveyed in practice, of the dealer as a "mere intermediary" between client and grading houses does not withstand precise legal analysis. The dealer physically receives the cards, handles them, packages them, often subjects them to cleaning or restoration, coordinates their shipment and return, and avails themselves of internal or external auxiliaries and third-party carriers. The result is a unitary liability that encompasses the exact performance of the mandate, custody of the cards, liability for technical interventions performed directly or through auxiliaries, and obligations related to shipment.
The Limits of Exclusion Clauses
Given the articulated liability regime, the discipline of exclusion or limitation clauses is of particular relevance. The practice of both restorers and dealers shows a widespread tendency to prepare disclosures, terms, forms and general conditions aimed at concentrating risk on the client.
However, the combined provisions of Articles 1229, 1341-1342 of the Civil Code and – in the presence of consumers – Articles 33 ff. of the Italian Consumer Code set very clear boundaries: liability for wilful misconduct or gross negligence cannot be excluded or limited; unilaterally prepared limitation clauses must be specifically approved in writing (and, in certain cases, subject to specific individual negotiation) and drafted in clear and understandable terms; in the B2C (business to consumer) relationship, every clause that determines a "significant imbalance" to the detriment of the consumer may be declared unfair and therefore null, regardless of formal acceptance.
It follows that the function of limitation clauses cannot be that of cancelling professional risk, but at most of modulating it in a balanced manner, by transparently defining the conditions of the service.
Operational Guidelines for TCG Industry Operators
From an operational perspective, the framework suggests certain courses of action for restorers, dealers, platforms, marketplaces and high-profile collectors who intend to conform their activity to the rules of civil law.
First, it is necessary to adopt clear and tailored contractual schemes that distinguish the different phases of the service (restoration, intermediation, custody, shipment) and specify, for each, obligations, limits, risks and liabilities.
Second, to prepare detailed technical disclosures on cleaning and restoration treatments, with particular attention to cases in which the risk of altered outcomes is not negligible, and to obtain informed consent from the client.
Third, to implement conservation, packaging and documentation protocols so as to be able to demonstrate, in the event of a loss, the adoption of all measures that can be required under the professional standard of the sector.
Fourth, to distinguish on the insurance side between coverage on the asset (parcel insurance) and coverage on the restorer's professional liability.
Finally, to critically review the exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in light of the limits set by the Civil Code and the Consumer Code.
Towards Professionalisation of the Sector
From a systemic perspective, the progressive institutionalisation of card collecting – with values that, for certain categories of items, reach and exceed thresholds typical of the art market or investment goods – makes an increase in litigation in the sector likely.
The preparation of adequate contractual documentation, the professionalisation of sector practices and specialised legal advice may therefore represent not only a tool of protection for individual operators but also a factor of overall maturation of the trading card games market, capable of consolidating reliance, transparency and safe circulation of goods.
Civil law does not merely regulate ex post breaches but provides – if correctly used – a regulatory architecture capable of orienting ex ante the conduct of operators, outlining a reasonable balance between freedom of economic initiative, protection of the collector and professional responsibility.
It will be for the protagonists of the TCG landscape to embrace this dimension, transforming a sector still marked by informality and spontaneous practices into a field of structured entrepreneurial and professional activity, capable of withstanding comparison with the more mature markets of contemporary collecting.
About the Author
Alberto Agostini is co-founder of Studio Agostini & Kasapoğlu, an international boutique law firm based in Bologna and Ankara. His practice focuses on commercial and contract advisory, with particular attention to the Italy-Turkey corridor, the collectibles and memorabilia market, and technology law.
In the collectibles sector, the Firm advises online platforms, marketplaces, auction houses, grading services, professional dealers, specialised retailers and high-profile collectors active in the market for collectible cards (Pokémon, Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, One Piece Card Game), memorabilia and other collectibles.
The Firm's activity includes the drafting and negotiation of terms of service, auction regulations, consignment, deposit and custody contracts, as well as the management of disputes concerning authenticity, grading outcomes and professional liability of market operators.
Alberto Agostini is registered with the Bar Association of Bologna and is the author of publications on civil liability in collectibles grading services and on the ecosystem of Italian legal data for artificial intelligence.
Need Legal Assistance for Your TCG Business?
Studio Agostini & Kasapoğlu offers specialised legal services for operators of the trading card games, memorabilia and collectibles market: contract drafting, terms of service, regulations, professional liability, disputes with platforms and marketplaces, and trademark protection in the collectibles sector.
Contact the Firm for a preliminary assessment of your activity.
Original publication: Agostini A., "Civil Liability in Restoration, Cleaning and Grading Intermediation Services in Trading Card Games (TCG)", Studio Agostini & Kasapoğlu, Bologna, 23 November 2025. Full version available on Zenodo, Social Science Research Network, Journal of Economic Development & Global Markets: https://zenodo.org/records/17689078; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5791882; https://glintopenaccess.com/Economic/Articles/JEDGM-26-01.pdf.
#TradingCardGames · #Pokémon · #MagicTheGathering · #YuGiOh · #OnePieceCardGame · #Collectibles · #CivilLiability · #Grading · #TCGDealer · #CollectiblesLaw · #ItalianLaw · #ConsumerCode · #Memorabilia · #StudioAgostiniKasapoglu