The Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal by Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which face class-action lawsuits in multiple provinces for allegedly profiting from third-party ticket reselling.
The case stems from allegations Ticketmaster facilitated mass ticket scalping in breach of its own terms of use and policy, allowing resellers to use automated 害羞草研究所渢icket bots害羞草研究所� to scoop up event tickets beyond limits it imposes on individual buyers.
The class-action lawsuit filed in B.C. was one of five launched against the companies in 2018 after media reports about Ticketmaster害羞草研究所檚 activity in the secondary ticket market.
The Toronto Star and the CBC published stories about an undercover investigation of Ticketmaster害羞草研究所檚 pitch to so-called 害羞草研究所渢icket resellers害羞草研究所� at a convention in Las Vegas in the summer of 2018.
In a 2023 ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal, the panel of judges laid out the background of what spurred the lawsuits in B.C., Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec.
At the centre of the ensuing controversy was Ticketmaster害羞草研究所檚 pitch to professional scalpers on the use of Tradedesk, an inventory software product used by resellers to 害羞草研究所渧alidate and manage害羞草研究所� tickets they sell on the company害羞草研究所檚 website.
The media reports 害羞草研究所渟uggested害羞草研究所� that the company was touting the software to ticket resellers as a means of facilitating 害羞草研究所渕ass scalping,害羞草研究所� which appeared to violate the Ticketmaster website害羞草研究所檚 terms of use.
In B.C., lead plaintiff David Gomel claims he paid about US$437 for tickets to a Bruno Mars concert in Vancouver scheduled for July 2017.
Gomel bought the tickets from StubHub, a secondary seller of event tickets that competes with Ticketmaster.
The lawsuits hinge, in part, on claims of a 害羞草研究所済eneral inflationary effect害羞草研究所� on the secondary market for tickets, forcing people to pay more than face value, in violation of consumer protection legislation and the Competition Act.
The class in British Columbia claims Ticketmaster wrongfully profited by facilitating ticket reselling, while falsely claiming that members of the public would have a 害羞草研究所渇air opportunity害羞草研究所� to buy tickets at their face value rather than at inflated markups.
In its submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada, Ticketmaster argued that its purchase policy and terms of use were agreements with individuals who used the company害羞草研究所檚 website to buy tickets, rather than 害羞草研究所渞epresentations害羞草研究所� to the public at-large.
The company claimed the B.C. Court of Appeal got it wrong when it allowed the class-action to move forward by turning a 害羞草研究所渃onsumer contract into a promise to a market at-large.害羞草研究所�
Ticketmaster claimed in its Supreme Court of Canada submissions that the lawsuits it faces 害羞草研究所渉ave the potential to impact every business operating an e-commerce platform in Canada by vastly enlarging the kinds of claims they may face.害羞草研究所�
The company claimed that hearing its appeal would give the high court 害羞草研究所渁n opportunity to provide guidance on whether website terms of use are a sufficient factual basis for claims of misrepresentation to the public.害羞草研究所�
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the company害羞草研究所檚 request to hear the appeal, upholding the B.C. Court of Appeal害羞草研究所檚 July 2023 ruling.
The company害羞草研究所檚 lawyer, the B.C. law firm representing the class and lead plaintiff David Gomel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
READ ALSO:
READ ALSO:
