Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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

April 18, 2023

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

The New Realities of Funded Patent Litigation

By John Freund |

Third-party litigation funding has become a durable and sophisticated feature of U.S. patent disputes, fundamentally reshaping how cases are filed, litigated, and settled.

As reported by Financier Worldwide, R. David Donoghue of Holland & Knight examines how the growing presence of litigation funders in patent cases is altering the strategic landscape for both plaintiffs and defendants. The article notes a sustained, multi-year trend toward larger capital pools, more sophisticated funders, and broader reliance on portfolio-based enforcement structures, particularly in high-filing districts like Delaware and Eastern and Western Texas.

Funded plaintiffs, Donoghue writes, tend to bring more carefully vetted cases. Funders conduct rigorous pre-filing due diligence that often exceeds Rule 11 standards, meaning defendants are less likely to encounter speculative claims and more likely to face adversaries with defensible damages models and clear recovery paths. Non-recourse capital also gives funded plaintiffs extended staying power, enabling multitrack strategies that reduce the effectiveness of traditional cost-based litigation leverage.

Courts are responding with increased scrutiny. Judges are more frequently requiring disclosure of funder identities, financial interests, and control rights. Discovery into funding arrangements may be permitted when relevant to questions of bias, standing, or valuation.

For defense teams, Donoghue recommends early identification of claim weaknesses, targeted disclosure motions, rigorous damages discipline, and data-driven settlement proposals calibrated to litigation milestones rather than nuisance value. The article underscores that while funding does not necessarily increase frivolous filings, it does extend the duration and intensity of patent disputes.

Commercial

Burford Capital Director Makes the Case for Legal Finance as Strategic Capital Tool

By John Freund |

A veteran litigator turned legal finance professional is challenging what she calls the biggest misconception about the industry: that litigation funding is only for companies that cannot afford their legal bills.

As reported by Burford Capital, Director Stephanie Southwick — who spent more than 15 years as a first-chair commercial and intellectual property litigator before joining the firm seven years ago — argues that the real question for potential clients is not whether they can pay, but whether litigation spending represents the best use of capital. Even financially strong organizations, she says, benefit from preserving operational funds and converting legal expenses into monetizable assets.

Southwick emphasizes that trust and alignment between funder and client are essential for a successful funding arrangement, describing the ideal relationship as a strategic partnership rather than a purely transactional one. She also highlights the value of legal finance for startups, noting that it provides non-dilutive capital that allows founders to pursue meritorious claims without reducing runway or diluting equity.

For companies considering litigation financing, Southwick advises disciplined damages analysis and realistic budgeting from the outset. Early involvement of financing partners, she says, helps calibrate the structure and economics of an arrangement before litigation costs begin to accumulate.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Louisiana Partners with NICB to Target Litigation Funding Digital Ads

By John Freund |

Louisiana's insurance regulator is taking aim at third-party litigation funding marketing campaigns it says mislead consumers through deceptive digital advertising tactics.

As reported by Beinsure Media, the Louisiana Department of Insurance has partnered with the National Insurance Crime Bureau and 4WARN, a digital intelligence firm, to identify and combat TPLF-related paid search advertising that intercepts policyholders seeking claims assistance. Regulators allege that some campaigns create confusion about whether communications originate from insurers themselves.

The partnership follows a joint NICB and 4WARN report finding that TPLF organizations spent approximately $380 million on paid online search advertising between June 2024 and June 2025. According to regulators, some third-party marketers steer claimants toward litigation before they have an opportunity to contact their insurers directly, extending dispute timelines and increasing costs within the claims ecosystem.

The Louisiana Department of Insurance is advising policyholders to use verified sources, including the department's official website and mobile app, and to verify search result links before clicking.

The initiative marks the first coordinated regulatory effort specifically targeting TPLF digital marketing tactics, signaling a potential new front in the ongoing debate over litigation funding regulation at the state level.