Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Outcome of the decision
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
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court analyzed the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant and reasoned that:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.