California resident Andrew Garcia’s fraud lawsuit against LeBron James over the Los Angeles Lakers star’s “Second Decision”—which turned out to be a liquor ad rather than a retirement announcement—is a legal air ball.
Garcia, who filed his case in Los Angeles Superior Court’s small claims division, contends James owes him $865.66 for two tickets Garcia purchased to watch the Lakers host the Cleveland Cavaliers on March 31, 2026. Garcia says he bought the tickets believing James would use the “Decision” to announce that the 2025-26 NBA season would be his last. James’ X post implied it was something akin to his first “Decision,” when he announced in a 2010 interview that he was signing with the Miami Heat.
In a scenario where James was retiring, next March’s Lakers-Cavs game would be the last time the 40-year-old plays against his former team—unless, of course, both the Lakers and Cavs advance to the 2026 NBA Finals. It turns out James is not retiring, and the latest “Decision” was part of an advertising campaign James is launching with Hennessy.
There are a lot of problems with Garcia v. James, but the fundamental one is that a ticket to watch an NBA game from a specific seat in an arena provides a revocable right to watch two teams play.
And that’s all it does.
So long as a fan can watch the two teams play from the seat, the fan receives their end of the bargain. If the fan engages in conduct prohibited by the arena or team, the fan can see the license revoked and get kicked out of the arena. But the fan doesn’t have enforceable rights regarding how the team plays, how the games are coached or officiated or—in the case of Garcia—whether a player’s possible retirement somehow impacts the historical qualities of the game.
This is why lawsuits brought by fans who feel misled about who might play or the quality of officiating go nowhere. In 2013, a Miami Heat ticketholder sued the San Antonio Spurs over Spurs coach Gregg Popovich resting his star players, including Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, at the end of a long road trip. The ticketholder felt duped, but thecase failed because the ticket provided exactly what it promised: The chance to watch the Heat play the Spurs. Game tickets don’t guarantee that specific players on a team will appear in games.
Even when star players are used in marketing materials to lure people into buying tickets, fans know or should know that lineups and playing time are at the discretion of the coach. There are also injuries that impact who is available. Imagine a world where, because marketing staff promoted a player while trying to sell tickets, the coach had to play that player. It wouldn’t make any sense.
Likewise, even when ticketholders feel robbed by cheating or bad calls, that doesn’t mean the game ticket didn’t live up to its end of the bargain.
Houston Astros ticketholders felt understandably upset that their team, which won the 2017 World Series, was caught using a combination of cameras and bangs on trash cans to steal opposing teams’ catcher signals to the pitcher. Some of those ticketholders sued the Astros claiming fraud and demanding refunds. However, a court dismissed the case, saying “claims based on how a sports team plays the gameare not cognizable.”
For that same reason, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a lawsuit brought by a New York Jets fan against Bill Belichick. The lawsuit centered on the Spygate controversy, where the New England Patriots violated an NFL camera policy. The legal argument was that the Patriots “violated the contractual expectations and rights of Jets ticketholders, who fully anticipated and contracted for a ticket to observe an honest match.”
The Third Circuit rejected the argument, since a ticket to watch the Jets play another team doesn’t guarantee an “honest match.”
Consider also New Orleans Saints fans who sued over the failure of NFL referees to call pass interference at the 2019 NFC Championship Game between the Saints and the Los Angeles Rams. Those fans were correct in pointing out the no-call was really bad and may have been the difference between the Saints losing the chance to go to the Super Bowl.
Unfair? Sure.
Illegal? No.
The Saints litigation described a kind of “injury” relatable to fans and one that might engender empathy, but not one the law can remedy.
Garcia’s case is also saddled by the likely absence of legal duty owed by James to those who read his social media posts and other commentary. Garcia is not in contract with James, and how Garcia interprets James’ posts is up to him. Further, as noted by U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas indismissing Drake’s lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl-performed song Not Like Us on Thursday, published statements on social media are generally understood as utilizing “a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style” that doesn’t equate to factual assertions or actionable promises.
Sportico has reviewed Garcia’s filing. He states James is on the hook to him on account of “fraud, deception, misrepresentation and any and all basis of legal recovery.” The case has been assigned to Judge Michael J. Pearce, and a non-jury trial is currently scheduled for Dec. 1 at the Bellflower Courthouse in Bellflower, Calif.
Expect James, through an attorney, to motion to dismiss the case and argue it is frivolous.
The Lakers-Cavs game may or may not turn out to be compelling or memorable. If people are concerned they might not get their money’s worth by buying tickets to the game, they have a good option: Don’t buy tickets.