Trending Now
  • Legal-Bay Flags $8.5M Uber Verdict in Arizona Bellwether
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 Regulatory Issues

Senate Bill Targets Litigation Funding Transparency With Non-Profit Exemption

By John Freund |

U.S. lawmakers are seeking to impose new transparency requirements on third-party litigation financing in major lawsuits, while carving out protections for nonprofit legal organizations that receive funding to provide free legal services.

An article in Reuters reports that a group of Senate Republicans led by Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley has introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act. The bill would require disclosure of third-party financing in class actions and mass tort litigation, a narrower scope than past proposals aimed at all civil cases. Importantly for the legal funding market, the legislation includes an exemption for nonprofit legal groups funded by U.S. donors that provide pro bono representation, protecting those organizations from having to disclose their backers.

Supporters of the measure frame it as a move toward greater openness about who is financing high-stakes litigation, arguing that visibility into funding sources is essential to ensure fairness and guard against undue influence. The bill would also bar third-party funders from influencing litigation strategy, settlement negotiations, or accessing confidential documents. However, critics—including the International Legal Finance Association, an industry body—contend that imposing disclosure rules could chill litigation finance and potentially limit access to justice for plaintiffs who rely on third-party capital to pursue claims. Conservative advocacy groups have also weighed in against the bill, fearing that disclosure mandates could expose donors to political scrutiny despite the nonprofit carveout.

The bill’s introduction builds on a history of legislative efforts by Grassley to regulate litigation funding transparency, though previous versions have stalled in the House amid bipartisan opposition.

For the legal funding industry, this legislation raises crucial questions about regulatory risk and disclosure expectations in the U.S. If enacted, the bill could reshape how funders participate in large-scale litigation and how transparency requirements are balanced against concerns over client privacy, fundraising, and the broader access-to-justice mission.

Commercial Deals

UK Funder Makes Fresh Pitch After Liquidating Core Fund

By John Freund |

A UK-based litigation funder is seeking to reset its strategy and reassure investors after liquidating one of its key funds, underscoring the mounting pressures facing capital providers in an increasingly competitive and scrutinized funding market.

An article in Bloomberg reports that Katch Investment Group wound down a flagship vehicle and returned capital to investors, following a period of underperformance and portfolio challenges. The move marks a significant inflection point for the firm, which is now presenting a revised investment strategy aimed at regaining investor confidence and stabilizing its platform.

According to the report, the funder’s leadership has framed the liquidation as a proactive step designed to preserve value and recalibrate its approach in light of shifting market dynamics. The litigation finance sector has faced headwinds in recent years, including longer case durations, delayed resolutions, and increased regulatory and judicial scrutiny—particularly in collective proceedings. These factors have complicated return profiles and made capital raising more challenging, especially for publicly listed or institutionally backed funders under pressure to demonstrate consistent performance.

The firm is now pitching a refined model that emphasizes disciplined case selection, portfolio diversification, and closer alignment with investor expectations. The reset comes at a time when several UK-based funders are reassessing their exposure to large, high-risk group actions and exploring alternative structures, including co-investment arrangements and bespoke mandates.

Case Developments Commercial

Law Firm in J&J Baby Powder Cases Sues Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

A dispute emerging from the long-running talc litigation against Johnson & Johnson has spilled into a new front, as a plaintiffs’ law firm has filed suit against its own litigation funders in a high-stakes funding battle tied to the baby powder cases.

An article in Reuters reports that the firm, which represents claimants alleging that Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder products caused cancer, has sued multiple litigation funders over the terms and enforcement of its funding agreements. The complaint centers on allegations that the funders are seeking repayment amounts the firm contends are excessive or otherwise improper under the governing contracts. The lawsuit underscores the financial strain and complex capital structures underpinning mass tort litigation, particularly in sprawling, multi-year proceedings like the talc cases.

According to the report, the firm argues that the funders’ demands threaten its financial stability and ability to continue representing clients in the ongoing litigation. The case reflects the high-risk, high-reward nature of funding large portfolios of mass tort claims, where returns can hinge on bankruptcy proceedings, global settlements, or appellate outcomes. Johnson & Johnson’s use of bankruptcy maneuvers to resolve talc liabilities has already added further uncertainty and delay, complicating recovery timelines for plaintiffs’ firms and their capital providers.

The dispute highlights the intricate dynamics between law firms and funders in contingency-heavy practices. Funding arrangements in mass torts often involve layered investments, staged drawdowns, and complex priority waterfalls. When case timelines stretch or resolution values shift, tensions over repayment multiples and control rights can quickly surface.