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 Regulatory Issues

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Commercial Legal Innovation

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

Case Developments Commercial

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.