Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Could UK Class Actions Put a Stop to Ticketmaster’s Price-Gouging?

The following piece was contributed by Tom Davey, Co-Founder and Director at Factor Risk Management.

News of another class-action lawsuit against Ticketmaster comes as little surprise, given the company’s long history of legal disputes both in the UK and North America. Described by US senator Richard Blumenthal as a “monopolistic mess”, the company has been beset with criticism and legal action ever since merging with events promoter and venue operator Live Nation in 2010. The combined entity controls around 70% of the live venue and ticketing marketplace, a situation which many believe it exploits at the expense of its customers.

The latest class-action suit, filed by a Canadian law firm, centres on the alleged price-gouging of ticket sales for an upcoming concert by rap superstar Drake. A Montreal man purchased two “Official Platinum” tickets for Drake’s show on 14th July, believing it was the only date he would be performing at the Bell Centre. Having paid $789.54 for each ticket, he then discovered the next day that a second show had been added, with the same tickets each costing $350 less than what he had paid. The suit claims that Ticketmaster had been deceptive in not announcing both dates at the same time and had intentionally withheld the information about a second show to manipulate fans into overpaying. Further, the suit alleges that the tickets sold as “Official Platinum” were simply ordinary tickets relabelled as premium in bad faith. As such, compensation of the difference between the prices paid and the cheaper-priced identical tickets is being sought, as well as punitive damages of $300 for each affected customer.

While collective actions are not easy to mount in North America, plaintiffs are bolstered by the fact that juries there tend to be more claimant-friendly than in other jurisdictions, including by awarding significant damages when finding in their favour. Beneficial costs rules also make such legal actions easier to bring, making the conditions sufficiently clement for group claims to proceed to trial.

By contrast, the system in the UK remains more austere, operating under an unclear, unpredictable and complex regime, whether in the High Court or in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). However, there is an increasing trend of lawyers at North American firms with a UK presence, or vice versa, noticing the direction of travel set by their colleagues in the US and exploring similar actions, subject to the limitations of their respective jurisdiction. As such, Ticketmaster’s various legal issues in North America may well prove a precursor for similar UK-based claims.

The current class-action facing Ticketmaster is just the latest in a series of lawsuits brought against the company for claims including price fixing and anti-competitive behaviour. The company also faced severe criticism after introducing a “dynamic pricing” model in the UK last year. Already in use in its US sales operations, the system replaces fixed-price tickets with tickets that fluctuate in price based on demand, with critics seeing the model as yet another example of Ticketmaster abusing its dominance of the market to extract even more profit from a captive consumer base.

The company’s legal woes are not limited to issues over the pricing of its tickets. Following a data breach affecting 1.5m UK customers in 2018, Ticketmaster settled out of court in relation to a 40,000-strong group claim. However, the £1.25m penalty notice issued by the ICO did not confer compensation to the affected individuals, nor was it binding by the court. In any event, given the seriousness of the breach, in which personal and banking information was stolen and misused, resulting in over 60,000 bank cards being fraudulently used, such a small fine would have had little effect as a deterrent.

With global revenues of over $9 billion, it is evident that large companies like Ticketmaster are able to flout the rules with limited financial impact. With little meaningful regulatory or court enforcement against the firm, Ticketmaster continues to operate with impunity, safe in the knowledge that its ballooning profits will exceed any financial penalties imposed for any wrongdoing it carries out.

There are clouds on the company’s horizon, however, with US Senators earlier this year calling on the Justice Department to investigate what they called “anticompetitive conduct” by Ticketmaster in relation to its sales. Their call to arms followed a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February, which had convened to investigate the lack of competition in the ticketing industry and what they saw as the unfair dominance of Ticketmaster in the sector.

The Senate inquiry had been prompted in part by the well-publicized fiasco surrounding ticket sales for Taylor Swift’s upcoming five-month tour. Ticketmaster’s website crashed during the sales process, stranding customers in line for “presale” tickets for hours, and eventually leading to the cancellation of the public sale. Instead, the only tickets available for purchase were listed on resale sites at sky-high prices, despite Ticketmaster’s promises to weed out scalpers, bots and resale firms from its original sales process.  A class action lawsuit duly followed the debacle, as well as reports that the Justice Department had already opened an antitrust investigation into the firm. Politicians were quick to echo the concerns of affected customers, while Tennessee’s attorney general announced a consumer protection investigation into the company after being deluged with complaints from residents of the state.

Should the claims of antitrust practices be confirmed by the Justice Department, there is a high likelihood that legal teams in the UK would then explore a potential claim against the company via the CAT. This would be a lengthy, expensive and high-risk process, with any cases brought via such route needing third-party funding in order to see their way to fruition.

While group actions such as the Canadian lawsuit currently facing Ticketmaster can be complex processes to negotiate, court-awarded compensation is a far more effective tool in curbing corporate malpractice when compared with the modest fines which regulators can levy. If UK law firms are to follow the lead of their North American counterparts, Ticketmaster may finally pay the price for price-gouging.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Law Firm Corner

Litigation Funding – Section 107 Needs Amending

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

The necessity of disclosing litigation funding remains contentious. In October 2024, the federal judiciary’s rules committee decided to create a litigation finance subcommittee after 125 big companies argued that transparency of litigation funding is needed. 

Is there a problem in need of a fix?

Concerns include (a) Undisclosed funding may lead to unfair advantages in litigation. Allegedly if one party is backed by significant financial resources, it could affect the dynamics of the case. (b) Potential conflicts of interest may arise from litigation funding arrangements. Parties and the court may question whether funders could exert influence over the litigation process or settlement decisions, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. (c) The presence of litigation funding can alter the strategy of both parties in negotiations. Judges may be concerned that funders might push for excessive settlements or prolong litigation to maximize their returns. While litigation funding can enhance access to justice for under-resourced plaintiffs, judges may also be wary of the potential for exploitative practices where funders prioritize profit over the plaintiffs' best interests.

A litigant’s financial wherewithal is irrelevant. A litigant’s balance sheet also addresses financial resources and the strength of one’s balance sheet may affect the dynamics of the litigation but there is no rationale for a new rule that a litigant’s balance sheet be disclosed. What matters is the law and the facts. Disclosure of litigation funding is a basis on which to argue that anything offered in settlement by the funded litigant is unreasonable and to blame it on litigation funding. 

Ethics rules

The concerns about litigation funding are adequately dealt with by The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as various state ethical rules and state bar associations. An attorney's obligation is to act in the best interests of their client. Among other things, attorneys must (a) adhere to the law and ethical standards, ensuring that their actions do not undermine the integrity of the legal system, (b)  avoid conflicts of interest and should not represent clients whose interests are directly adverse to those of another client without informed consent, (c) fully explain to clients potential risks and implications of various options and (d) explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. 

These rules are designed to ensure that attorneys act in the best interests of their clients while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Violations of these ethical obligations can result in disciplinary action, including disbarment, sanctions, or reprimand. Disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary because the ethics rules adequately govern an attorney’s behavior and their obligations to the court. New rules to enforce existing rules are redundant and unnecessary. Plus, disclosure of litigation funding can be damaging to the value of a litigation claim.

Value maximization and preservation

Preserving and enhancing the value of the estate are critical considerations in a Chapter 11 case. Preservation and enhancement are fundamental to the successful reorganization, as they directly impact the recovery available to creditors and the feasibility of the debtor's reorganization efforts. Often, a litigation claim is a valuable estate asset. A Chapter 11 debtor may seek DIP financing in the form of litigation funding when it faces financial distress that could impede its ability to pursue valuable litigation. However, disclosure of litigation funding- like disclosure of a balance sheet in a non-bankruptcy case- can devalue the litigation asset if it impacts an adversary’s case strategy and dynamics.

The ”364” process

In bankruptcy there is an additional problem. Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the conditions under which litigation funding – a form of “DIP” financing- may be approved by the court. 

When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks DIP financing, several disclosures are made. Some key elements of DIP financing that customarily are disclosed include (a) Why DIP financing is necessary. (b) The specific terms of the DIP financing, including the amount, interest rate, fees, and repayment terms. (c) What assets will secure DIP financing and the priority of the DIP lender's claims. (d) How DIP financing will affect existing creditors. (e) How the proposed DIP financing complies with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Litigation funding in a bankruptcy case requires full disclosure of all substantive terms and conditions of the funding- more than just whether litigation funding exists and whether the funder has control in the case. Parties being sued by the debtor seek to understand the terms of the debtor’s litigation funding to gauge the debtor’s capability to sustain litigation and to formulate their own case strategy.

Section 107 needs revision

Subsection (a) of section 107 provides that except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case and on the docket are public records. Subsection (b) (1) provides thaton request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information.Applications for relief that involve commercial information are candidates for sealing or redaction by the bankruptcy court. 

But the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly define "commercial information." 

The interpretation of "commercial information" has been developed through case law. For instance, in In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27, the Second Circuit defined "commercial information" as information that would cause an unfair advantage to competitors.” This definition has been applied in various cases to include information that could harm or give competitors an unfair advantage, and it has been held to include information that, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the conduct of the bankruptcy case. (In re Purdue Pharma LP, SDNY 2021). In such instances allowing public disclosure also would diminish the value of the bankruptcy estate. (In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc.395 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

Additionally, courts have held that "commercial information" need not rise to the level of a trade secret to qualify for protection under section 107(b), but it must be so critical to the operations of the entity seeking the protective order that its disclosure will unfairly benefit the entity's competitors. (In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 708–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 28)). 

Knowledge of litigation funding and, especially, the terms and conditions of the funding can give an adversary a distinct advantage. In effect the adverse party is a “competitor” of the debtor. They pull at opposite ends of the same rope. Furthermore, disclosure would adversely affect the conduct of the case- which should be defined to include diminution of the value of the litigation claim. 

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to clarify that information in an application for litigation funding may, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, be deemed “confidential information” subject to sealing or redaction if the court authorizes it.

Conclusion

A new rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary and can damage the value of a litigation claim. If the rules committee nevertheless recommend disclosure there should be a carve out for bankruptcy cases specifically enabling bankruptcy judges to authorize redaction or sealing pleadings related to litigation funding. 

Commercial Deals

Hedge Funds and Private Equity Avoiding the Legal Funding Limelight

By Harry Moran |

There are household names in the litigation funding world that are well-known throughout the industry and beyond. However, some financial institutions seek to benefit from the lucrative returns available from litigation finance whilst trying to avoid the public spotlight on these activities.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers fresh insights into the involvement of non-traditional litigation funders in the market, with investments from hedge funds and private equity firms in high-value cases and deals only coming to light through court documents and filings. 

The article highlights the role of Davidson Kempner in funding patent claims brought by Audio Pod IP LLC against Audible Inc., which was revealed through a countersuit by Audible in a Manhattan federal court. Notably, Bloomberg’s investigation of public filings also found that this was not an isolated example of Davidson Kempner’s ties to patent holders engaged in lawsuits against large technology firms including ByteDance, Hulu, Samsung and SAP America. 

Other examples of these non-traditional funders' engagement with the legal sector include BlackRock’s use of its credit fund to lend to law firms and plaintiffs, and Cliffwater’s $14 million involvement in the funding deal between Gramercy Funds and Pogust Goodhead.

The extent to which these companies do not want to be publicly associated with litigation finance was strikingly demonstrated in the article. Beyond the number of firms who declined to comment on the reporting, when Bloomberg Law reached out to Soros Fund Management about one of their analysts whose LinkedIn revealed a focus on litigation finance, the analyst quickly removed the reference to legal funding from their profile.

More detail on the specific cases these hedge funds and private equity firms are backing can be found in Bloomberg Law’s full article here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Arizona Legislature’s Two Litigation Funding Bills Divided on Disclosure Rules

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported at the end of February, Arizona’s legislature appears set on moving forward with some form of enhanced regulation for litigation funding in the state. However, a recent development in the House has demonstrated that there is not yet consensus on the final scope and focus of these new rules.

An article in the Arizona Capitol Times provides an update from the state legislature on the progression of two competing bills, each offering a different approach to the regulation of third-party litigation funding in Arizona. Whilst both bills successfully passed through votes in the House Judiciary Committee, it is not yet clear which bill will be the preferred candidate in an eventual floor vote, with the differences in disclosure rules between the bills being a key factor.

Senate Bill 1215, sponsored by Senator Leach, was passed by the Senate on March 13 and contained the oft-seen provisions of mandating disclosure of funding agreements, limiting funder control over legislation and some prohibitions against foreign funders. SB 1215, which Leach described as a “consumer protection bill”, retains the backing of chambers of commerce, insurance companies, and business associations.

Senate Bill 1542 was introduced in response to Leach’s proposal by Rep. Alexander Kolodin, seeking to limit the disclosure provisions to only include foreign funders or civil cases involving the state. Furthermore, disclosure of third-party funding would only be made to the attorney general rather than to the court itself. Kolodin suggested that existing court mechanisms for discovery are sufficient and questioned the potential for malign use of mandatory disclosure, arguing that “you shouldn’t be able to deprive somebody of the ability to pursue a case by threatening their source of funding.”

While Kolodin joined the rest of the committee in unanimously voting in favour of SB 1215 at the committee stage, he said that he would likely vote against it in a floor vote. Kolodin’s alternative bill passed comfortably at the committee vote, but did receive two no votes from Rep. Selina Bliss and Rep. Lupe Contreras.

The full text of SB 1215, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.

The full text of SB 1542, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.