Restoring and cleaning collectible cards: what is allowed and who is liable

Restoring and cleaning a collectible card is lawful and is today a widespread practice: a very large share of the valuable cards on the market has undergone some form of treatment. The subject, however, is governed by two distinct levels that it is essential not to confuse: on one hand the treatment itself, which is a contract for services; on the other its relationship with grading, which is a separate activity, carried out by private operators according to discretionary criteria. This guide explains, objectively, what can and cannot be done, why treatment almost always affects grading, what the duties of the person performing the work are and what the rights of the person commissioning it are.

What is meant by cleaning a collectible card

Cleaning is the set of technical activities aimed at removing or reducing dirt, residues and impurities from the surface of the card, such as stains, dust, fingerprints, halos and deposits. It acts on the surface, with techniques compatible with the paper stock and the print, without rebuilding material and without structural intervention. Its purpose is aesthetic, to improve the presentability of the item. Because it works on inks, laminations and sensitive holographic layers, whose reaction to the agents used is not always predictable, it requires technical competence; this does not mean, however, that it amounts, in legal terms, to a service of special difficulty, as will be seen when discussing liability.

What is meant by restoration

Restoration is the set of technical activities aimed at removing or reducing structural imperfections of the card, such as creases, folds, dents, curling, raised areas and chipped edges. Unlike cleaning, which works on the surface, restoration acts on the physical conformation of the item and carries wider margins of irreversibility: a poorly calibrated press or humidification can permanently alter the stock. It is, for this reason, the intervention with the highest risk profile.

Is it legal to clean or restore a card

Yes, and it is today a widespread practice in collecting, to the point that most valuable cards on the market have undergone some form of treatment. The activity is not prohibited: it becomes legally relevant as a professional service. Anyone who performs it for consideration takes on the obligations of a self-employed contractor under Article 2222 of the Italian Civil Code, and is bound to the diligence required by the nature of the activity under Article 1176, paragraph 2. What generates disputes is therefore not the treatment in itself, but the way it is carried out and, above all, the way it is disclosed ahead of grading and sale.

Why treatment affects grading: the "altered" qualification

A treated card, if submitted for grading, is almost always qualified as altered, and this is a foreseeable outcome, not the sign of poorly executed work. Grading companies are private operators that work according to proprietary and discretionary regulations, and they take an unfavourable view of any conservative or aesthetic intervention. Under PSA's standards, for example, restoration of the stock, pressing of folds and creases, removal of scratches, reduction of surface defects and the application of any substance to the card, including cleaning solutions, sprays or waxes, are autonomous grounds for refusing the numerical grade, traced to the no-grade definitions known as N2, N5 and N7 and to the assignment of the Altered qualification, regardless of the technical quality of the intervention. Likewise, BGS assigns the Authentic Altered qualification where it detects evidence of trimming, tampering, recoloring, restoring, cleaning, pressing or shaving. Analogous criteria, in their own wording, are adopted by the other companies. The economic effect is drastic: a card perceived as no longer authentic in its original configuration suffers a reduction in value so marked as to bring its price close to zero, even to the point of excluding it from the collecting market.

The crucial distinction: the operation, the qualification and the relationship with grading

On the legal level, two planes that the market tends to confuse must be kept separate. The first is the treatment itself, that is the cleaning or restoration, which is an autonomous contract for services: the operator undertakes to carry out the aesthetic or conservative intervention correctly, and it is against this that the operator's diligence is measured. The second is the Altered qualification, which is the outcome of a different and subsequent activity, grading, carried out by a third party according to discretionary criteria. The fact that a card is then qualified as altered does not, in itself, mean that the treatment was carried out badly: these are assessments belonging to different planes.

This distinction becomes critical when the treatment is openly functional to grading, and all the more so when the same operator also acts as a dealer and handles the intermediation with the grading company. In that case the two planes tend to merge: if the entire operation is aimed at having the card graded, and the operator is fully aware of this because it is the operator itself that arranges the submission, it becomes difficult to maintain detachment from the Altered outcome. This is the most delicate grey area of the sector. The way to manage it is to keep the cleaning and restoration service clearly separate, including at the documentary level, from the distinct service of grading intermediation, which remains a service in its own right and deserves dedicated treatment.

The professional's duties and the client's rights: prior information

The point of balance between the two positions is the duty of prior information. Before acting, the operator must inform the client that the treatment foreseeably entails the Altered qualification at grading and the consequent zeroing of value, and must obtain informed consent, all the more so where the intervention is uncertain or irreversible. If this information is given in full and is documented, and the services are kept distinct, the risk of the Altered qualification is knowingly assumed by the client, and the operator may legitimately exclude liability for that outcome. If, on the other hand, nothing is said, and the card comes back altered without the client having been warned, a problem arises: the breach of the duty to inform is in itself a source of professional liability, regardless of the technical correctness of the intervention. For the client this translates into a precise right, that of being informed in advance and clearly of the effects of the treatment on gradability and value.

Liability for defects in the work and the time limits to assert it

When the damage stems from the execution of the work, the operator's liability is assessed on the ground of contractual breach, under Articles 1218 and 1176 of the Civil Code. Here a clarification must be made that the market often wrongly takes for granted. Article 2236 of the Civil Code provides that, if the service involves the solution of technical problems of special difficulty, the contractor is liable for damages only in cases of wilful misconduct or gross negligence, and operators frequently insert into their terms of service clauses that qualify the treatment as a service of special difficulty precisely in order to invoke this limitation. That qualification, however, is neither automatic nor inherent: whether the cleaning or restoration of a given card truly falls among technical problems of special difficulty is an assessment left to the court, to be made case by case in relation to the specific intervention. For ordinary work the standard remains that of ordinary professional diligence, and the limitation to gross negligence alone can operate only for genuinely complex interventions. In any event, Article 1229 of the Civil Code prohibits the contractual exclusion of liability for wilful misconduct and gross negligence, which therefore always remains enforceable.

As to remedies, damage to the work, such as solvent halos, uneven pressing, clouding or discoloration from excessive heat, is also governed by Article 2226 of the Civil Code on defects in the work. Once the service has been accepted, even tacitly by taking back the card without objection, the operator is released from liability for defects that are known or readily recognisable, unless they have been fraudulently concealed. For hidden defects the client must report them within eight days of discovery, on pain of forfeiture, and the action is time-barred within one year of delivery: it is therefore the client's burden to inspect the card on its return and to report any anomaly in good time. Autonomous conduct, on the other hand, such as negligence, breach of information duties and damage from poor custody, which are not defects in the work in the strict sense, remains subject to the ordinary limitation period under Article 2946 of the Civil Code.

How to protect yourself, as an operator and as a collector

The security of the relationship is built before the intervention and on two fronts. For the person performing the work it means precisely defining the object and the limits of the service, keeping the treatment and any grading intermediation documentarily separate, fully informing the client of the effects of the treatment and obtaining consent, drafting valid clauses approved in the forms required by law, and documenting the state of the card at the end of the work. For the person commissioning the work it means demanding these guarantees, having explained in advance what the treatment entails for gradability and value, and checking the card on its return within the useful time limits. The difference between a transparent relationship and a costly dispute almost always turns on the quality of the prior information and of the contractual documentation.

This guide provides a general framework and does not replace the assessment of the specific case, which depends on the type of intervention, the materials and the agreements between the parties. If you are an operator and want to set up terms of service, disclosures and forms that will hold up, or if you are a collector dealing with a card returned as altered or with an undisclosed treatment, you can write to me through the site for a review of your situation.

By Alberto Agostini, lawyer admitted to the Bar of Bologna, Studio Agostini & Kasapoğlu, lawyer for the law of collectible cards and TCG. A detailed treatment of these issues is contained in the paper "Civil Liability in Restoration, Cleaning and Grading Intermediation Services for Trading Card Games", by Alberto Agostini, available in open access.