Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
Decision date
13 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Consumer protection
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld

Case analisys

General Summary

Plaintiffs were consumers who bought tickets to events that were canceled, and filed an action against the Defendant, an event production company, for a supposed wrongful change in its refund policies for canceled or rescheduled events as a result of Covid-19. The Defendant in this putative nationwide class action (the complaint was filed as a putative class action by one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of an unnamed class of similarly-situated plaintiffs) concerning its refund policy for events affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. The putative action became litigation. The Court reasoned that the Defendant had failed to meet its burden to establish whether the eight Plaintiffs who purchased their tickets on the mobile application entered into an agreement to arbitrate. According to the Court, the Defendant did not provide sufficient information that the “sign in” and “checkout” processes on the mobile application contained adequate disclosure of any arbitration agreement. The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiffs agreed to an arbitration provision in the User Agreement when they registered for an account because it did not provide information about (1) whether the Plaintiffs registered through the website or mobile application; (2) what the sign up screen on the mobile application looked like at the time these Plaintiffs signed up; and (3) what version of the User Agreement was in place at the time each Plaintiff registered. The Defendant renewed its motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Court should also compel arbitration as to the eight remaining Plaintiffs who purchased their tickets using the mobile application. In the same motion, and to the extent any claims remained before the Court, the Defendant moved to dismiss the majority of Plaintiffs’ causes of action as deficiently pleaded. The Court analyzed the arguments and denied both motions filed by the Defendant.

Facts of the case

The Defendant was an event production company sued for a supposed wrongful change in its refund policies for canceled or rescheduled events as a result of Covid-19. This putative nationwide class action concerned the Defendant ’s refund policy for events affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. In November 2021 the Court partially granted and denied the Defendant 's first motion to compel arbitration. In the order, the Court granted the motion regarding the Plaintiffs who purchased tickets on the website. The Court reasoned that the checkout process on the website put the Plaintiffs on constructive notice of the arbitration agreement. However, the Court found that the Defendant had failed to meet its burden to establish whether the eight Plaintiffs who purchased their tickets on the mobile application also accepted the arbitration agreement.

Type of measure challenged
Federal government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Damages
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of collective redress measures such as damages or restitutions and annulment of the administrative decision.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Private individual
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant and reasoned that: 

  1. When a party moves to compel arbitration, the court must determine (a) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (b) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.
  2. The Defendant does not offer evidence that these Plaintiffs assented to the arbitration agreement at the time they purchased tickets on the mobile application. Although the Defendant argued that they assented to the arbitration agreement when they visited the website at various points before and after they purchased their tickets on the mobile application, the Court found StubHub’s evidence deficient.
  3. A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
  4. Plaintiffs do not contend that the Defendant violated the terms of the User Agreement. Rather, they argue that it advertised its guarantee as providing a full money-back refund for canceled events.
  5. The Defendant may dispute the facts as alleged in this case, and it will have an opportunity to address such factual challenges at the dispositive motion or trial stage. But at this stage, the Court accepted Plaintiffs’ allegations as true.
Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently shown their claim and there was not evidence at that stage that they had agreed to the arbitration clause, thus denying the motion to compel arbitration and the motion to dismiss.

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Marco Nicolò on 26 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies