Shareholders allege management decisions affected Magic: The Gathering’s market and investor transparency
Hasbro is facing a new shareholder lawsuit that accuses the company and several of its directors of mismanaging Magic: The Gathering, with claims centred on overprinting, market dilution, and the handling of the controversial 30th Anniversary Set.
Filed this past Wednesday in the District of Rhode Island, the lawsuit alleges that Hasbro leadership prioritised short-term financial fixes at the expense of Magic’s long-term health, while also misleading investors about the performance of one of the game’s most criticised products.
The case, Crocono et al v Cocks et al, can be found here. The plaintiffs, Joseph Clocono and Ultan McGlone, have both held Hasbro shares for several years, with Clocono investing since 2020 and McGlone since 2021.
According to the complaint, the lawsuit names Hasbro Inc., Christian Cocks, Cynthia Williams, and other company directors as defendants. The plaintiffs are asking the judge to rule that they, as shareholders, are adequate representatives of Hasbro, and therefore can sue on behalf of the company itself. They also allege that each of the individual defendants failed in their fiduciary duties, and are seeking damages from them, along with greater shareholder influence on the board.
At the heart of the complaint is the claim that Hasbro has “knowingly overprinting” Magic products in order to offset weaker performance elsewhere in its business. According to the filing, this strategy has “flooded the market, devalued the product, angered players/retailers, and damaged the product’s long-term viability”.
Why Hasbro and its directors are being sued over Magic: The Gathering
The lawsuit runs to 76 pages, but two core allegations form the backbone of the shareholders’ case. The first concerns what the plaintiffs describe as the “Parachute Strategy”. According to the complaint, Hasbro leadership deliberately planned to “parachute in” new Magic sets whenever the wider company faced financial shortfalls. These releases were allegedly designed to be quick revenue injections, relying heavily on reprints and lower production costs.
Early examples of this approach are said to include Masters sets, before expanding into Secret Lair collaborations and releases such as Commander Legends: Battle for Baldur’s Gate. The lawsuit claims that this strategy accelerated dramatically between September 2021 and October 2023, stating: “As such, the explosive growth in the Magic business noted just prior to and during the Relevant Period was in fact the result of the Parachute Strategy.” It further alleges that in 2022 alone, these so-called parachute sets made up 46% of all Magic releases.
For long-time Magic players, the argument will sound familiar. Wizards of the Coast has significantly increased the number of sets released each year, a trend illustrated in a chart compiled by jacobwillson2727 at Only on Tuesdays. The plaintiffs argue that this acceleration has only intensified since that analysis was published.
Much of the legal argument builds on a 2022 Bank of America report by analyst Jason Haas, who accused Hasbro of “killing its golden goose” by overproducing Magic cards for short-term gain. The lawsuit frames its claims as a continuation of those concerns, suggesting Hasbro and its directors ignored repeated warnings from analysts and the player base alike.
Allegations around the Magic 30th Anniversary Set
The second major accusation centres on the Magic: The Gathering 30th Anniversary Set, a US$999 product that sparked immediate backlash upon announcement.
The set contained four booster packs of non-tournament-legal reprints of early Magic cards, including cards Wizards of the Coast had previously stated would never be reprinted. Critics took issue with the price, the lack of playability, and what they saw as a broken promise regarding iconic cards such as Black Lotus.
According to testimony referenced in the lawsuit, Hasbro leadership discussed a plan to “pause” sales of the product if demand fell short of expectations following the overwhelmingly negative response. Shortly after launch, Wizards of the Coast posted on X (then Twitter) that “the sale has concluded, and the product is currently unavailable for purchase.”
The plaintiffs allege this statement was misleading, arguing that the product was not genuinely sold out but was instead presented as “out of stock” to create artificial scarcity and inflate perceived demand.
Hasbro has denied the allegations. According to a report by IGN, the company shared the following statement in response to the lawsuit: “These claims have no merit. Our strategic plan for Magic was implemented, and the results underscore the strength of that strategy.”
How the Magic: The Gathering community is reacting to the lawsuit
Unsurprisingly, the lawsuit has sparked extensive discussion within the Magic community. A Reddit thread on r/magicTCG has already accumulated a large number of comments, with reactions ranging from scepticism to cautious support.
Several players, including Reddit user JayArlington, note that shareholder lawsuits of this kind are relatively common and often fail to gain traction. Others go further, describing the case as a potential “shakedown” and questioning whether the plaintiffs’ claims will stand up in court.
There is also broad agreement that Wizards of the Coast is releasing too many products, but many commenters argue that the strategy itself has been commercially successful. From that perspective, flooding the market may be unpopular with parts of the community, but not necessarily illegal.
That said, some players believe the lawsuit raises legitimate concerns. As Chainsawinsect points out, the issue may not be Magic’s success in isolation, but the extent to which Hasbro relies on it to prop up weaker properties. While Hasbro has publicly acknowledged struggles outside of Magic in recent years, the lawsuit argues that this reliance may have been obscured in ways that misled shareholders.
The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and its outcome has yet to be determined. Hearings and filings are expected to continue in the coming months, as the court considers the claims made by the plaintiffs.
