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 含羞草研究社渢icket bots含羞草研究社� 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含羞草研究社檚 activity in the secondary ticket market.
The Toronto Star and the CBC published stories about an undercover investigation of Ticketmaster含羞草研究社檚 pitch to so-called 含羞草研究社渢icket resellers含羞草研究社� 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含羞草研究社檚 pitch to professional scalpers on the use of Tradedesk, an inventory software product used by resellers to 含羞草研究社渧alidate and manage含羞草研究社� tickets they sell on the company含羞草研究社檚 website.
The media reports 含羞草研究社渟uggested含羞草研究社� that the company was touting the software to ticket resellers as a means of facilitating 含羞草研究社渕ass scalping,含羞草研究社� which appeared to violate the Ticketmaster website含羞草研究社檚 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 含羞草研究社済eneral inflationary effect含羞草研究社� 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 含羞草研究社渇air opportunity含羞草研究社� 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含羞草研究社檚 website to buy tickets, rather than 含羞草研究社渞epresentations含羞草研究社� 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 含羞草研究社渃onsumer contract into a promise to a market at-large.含羞草研究社�
Ticketmaster claimed in its Supreme Court of Canada submissions that the lawsuits it faces 含羞草研究社渉ave the potential to impact every business operating an e-commerce platform in Canada by vastly enlarging the kinds of claims they may face.含羞草研究社�
The company claimed that hearing its appeal would give the high court 含羞草研究社渁n opportunity to provide guidance on whether website terms of use are a sufficient factual basis for claims of misrepresentation to the public.含羞草研究社�
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the company含羞草研究社檚 request to hear the appeal, upholding the B.C. Court of Appeal含羞草研究社檚 July 2023 ruling.
The company含羞草研究社檚 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:
