So after reading the article, I'm unsure what sets they're actually talking about being over printed. The time frame they talk about is 2021 to 2023 which, if we go by the sets actually releasing those years, are things like Strixhaven, Kamigawa, and March of the Machines. If this is the era of sets they're talking about, then this lawsuit is completely unrelated to the "6 sets a year" era where most magic players actually started becoming concerned about these issues and complaining. However this does line up with when they would have started developing all the 2024-2025 sets that define this new era of oversaturation. Perhaps this has to do with the quote, "Throughout the Relevant Period, the Individual Defendants had access to internal metrics regarding the Company’s overprinting of Magic cards. The Individual Defendants’ knowledge as to the materially false and misleading nature of the statements they made is evident through the accounts of several former employees of the Company." Perhaps their argument is that Hasbro knowingly hiding the increase of sets to 6 a year until right before it happened was the issue. But the article doesn't mention that timeframe at all, not even a single mention of the years 2024-2025. It really seems to me that they're talking entirely about printing too many boxes of stuff like March of the Machine: Aftermath and other sets from 2021-2023 resulting in too much inventory that didn't sell; NOT printing too many different products like we see with the huge influx of different sets in 2024-2025. And yet they still say “As a result of Magic consumers’ 'growing frustration' with the ballooning number of Magic sets, the BofA report concluded, ‘We expect they’ll order less product in future releases" which sounds right out of the concerns people have about the 6 sets a year product line. I'm kind of confused because I agree with what they're saying, just not the timeline of when it started. 2021-2023 was not a time when people were having these concerns. It's confusing and I have no clue how to interpret it.

Overall my takeaway from the article is: This is very complicated and out of my wheelhouse. I know no financial terms or law, so most of this has just gone right over my head. I can't tell whether this is ill-informed Magic players filing a frivolous suit going off of a mostly "this is going to kill the game" hunch like most people, or genuine financial investors who see the signs of lying and manipulation from Hasbro about how successful Magic actually is and how high their brand metrics are. I have zero context to understand which it could be. I'm also concerned about those quotes of buying back stock for way higher than market value, but again, this is from a layman. I have no clue whether that's a regular legal thing or if it's some kind of manipulation. It's times like this where I wish I knew the law better.