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

AALF Chairman: UK Should Avoid Repeating “Australia’s Flirtation with Overbearing Regulation”

By Harry Moran |

With the UK funding industry awaiting the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s review of third-party litigation funding, most of the commentary about what direction the government should take has come from those professionals practicing inside the UK. However, in an example of transnational solidarity between funding markets, the head of Australia’s industry association has spoken out to encourage the UK government to act to protect its legal funding sector.

In an opinion piece for The Law Society Gazette, John Walker, chairman of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF), presents a strong argument that the UK government must avoid following Australia’s past mistake of overregulating the legal funding industry. With the prospect of the CJC’s review soon reaching its conclusion, Walker argues that the government’s “priority must be addressing the uncertainty created by the PACCAR decision”, rather than acceding to the demands of “the powerful, well-resourced and disingenuous minority perspective of the US Chamber of Commerce.”

Walker points to the recent history of legal funding in Australia, where the strength of these critics’ views led to the previous governments introducing strict regulations that created an environment where “access to justice for claimants was denied, corporate wrongdoers were protected, and claims started to dry up.” As Walker explains, the true lesson from Australia was the reversal of these regulations by the new government in 2022, which has seen funding rebound and drive a wave of class actions representing Australians seeking justice once more.

Taking aim at the opponents of the litigation funding industry, Walker highlighted the “myths pedalled” by groups like Civil Fair Justice as being “built on falsehoods that risk clouding reality and choking off access to justice.” Putting the often-repeated claim of funders supporting frivolous claims in the crosshairs, Walker notes “in reality, funders in the UK fund as few as 3% of the cases they're approached about.”

Commercial Legal Innovation

Qanlex Rebrands as Loopa Finance

By Harry Moran |

Litigation funding startups are a common occurrence, especially in recent years. However, the rebranding of an established funder is less common, yet worth keeping an eye on.

In a new blog post, the litigation funder formerly known as Qanlex announced that it is rebranding and will now operate under the name: Loopa Finance. The funder emphasised that it is still “the same team, the same values, and the same focus”, but with a new name that represents  the adoption of a “a clearer, more modern, and more memorable identity.”

The blog post goes on to provide a fuller explanation of the new name: “Loopa refers to our way of working: examining each opportunity with a magnifying glass and creating virtuous loops of funding, access to justice, and efficient conflict resolution.” The announcement also clarifies that the rebranding “does not imply any structural, corporate, or operational modifications.”

Loopa was founded as Qanlex in 2020, offering litigation finance services for cases in Latin America before expanding its funding solutions to commercial claims and arbitrations in continental Europe. As LFJ reported in January of this year, the funder revealed that it was refining its Latin America strategy using new technologies and focusing on specific sectors within individual jurisdictions in the region. Examples of this sector focus include energy cases in Ecuador, real estate development matters in Costa Rica, and oil and energy cases in Colombia. 

More information about Loopa Finance can be found on its website. 

Case Developments Commercial

Echo Law and LLS File Class Action Against Toyota Finance in Australia

By Harry Moran |

Class actions in Australia continue to be viewed as desirable opportunities for litigation funders, with the first half of 2025 already seeing a number of funded claims brought on behalf of consumers wronged by the state or large corporations. 

A joint media release from Echo Law and Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that they are pursuing a new class action against Toyota Finance in Australia, this time over the sale of “junk” add-on insurance to consumers. The claim, which has been brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleges that Toyota Finance and insurer Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Australia (ADICA), engaged in “unjust, unfair, misleading and unconscionable” conduct that breached the Corporations ACT, ASIC Act, and National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

The class action has been filed on behalf of any consumers who took out a car loan with Toyota Finance and were sold a Toyota branded add-on insurance policy between 1 January 2010 and 5 October 2021. The allegedly “junk” insurance policies covered by the class action include Toyota Payment Protection Insurance, Toyota Finance Gap Insurance, and Toyota Extended Warranty Insurance.

Alex Blennerhassett, Principal Lawyer at Echo Law, said that “this class action is about holding Toyota Finance and ADICA to account for knowingly selling junk insurance to everyday Australians, even though these policies offered no value.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Emma Colantonio, Chief Investment Officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a strong example of litigation funding enabling access to justice and supporting consumers in holding major financial players to account.”

This class action is separate to the Flex Commissions claim which was filed by Echo Law against Toyota Finance in February 2024. That class focuses on allegations that car dealers secretly inflated the interest rate on consumers’ car loans, resulting in additional interest fees. The Supreme Court has ruled that these separate class actions can be managed together, and Ms Blennerhassett said that they expected “there to be a significant number of persons who are group members in both proceedings”. 

LLS is providing funding for both class actions brought against Toyota Finance. More information on both class actions can be found on Echo Law’s website.