New England Patriots v. Stubhub

2009 WL 995483 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P makes available tickets to home football games. Until 2007, the following warning was printed on the back of each ticket in large block letters: ANY NON-LICENSED INDIVIDUAL RESELLING THIS TICKET BY ANY METHOD INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, IN PERSON, ON AN AUCTION WEB SITE, OR OTHERWISE OVER THE INTERNET AND ANY LICENSED INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY RESELLING THIS TICKET IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAW, IS SUBJECT TO ARREST, LEGAL ACTION AND LOSS OF SEASON TICKET PRIVILEGES.' Each ticket stated that it was a revocable license, that P reserved the right to revoke the ticket at any time and for any reason, and that P may refuse admission to, or eject, any ticket holder who fails to comply with any applicable rules or terms. P also had the right to revoke season tickets when ticket holders, either the ticket owners themselves or their guests, have engaged in unsafe or unacceptable conduct. Upon learning that a ticket holder has impermissibly transferred a ticket or tickets, P has revoked that holder's season tickets and refunded the full face value. Each ticket bears a unique bar code that is electronically scanned upon entrance. Should P cancel a ticket, the bar code is voided, and the ticket is useless. Demand for season tickets exceeds their supply. P established a wait list where, for a $100 deposit per seat, fans may join the list and await the opportunity to buy season tickets as they become available. The deposit is credited toward the purchase of season tickets or is refunded if no seats are available when the fan removes his or her name from the wait list. Season ticket holders may post their tickets for sale TicketExchange, a secure website, that is accessible only to other season ticket holders and wait list members. Once a match is made P cancels the original tickets, voids the bar code, and issues to the recipient new tickets with a different and valid bar code. P sells the tickets at face value and reimburses the original holder of the unused tickets. No one makes a profit on a TicketExchange transaction. D operates a website that allows people to buy and sell tickets to all kinds of events. Anyone listing on the site agrees to comply with 'all applicable local, state, federal and international laws, statutes and regulations regarding the use of the Site and the selling of tickets.' D states that Massachusetts law prohibits the reselling of tickets at more than $2.00 above face value, except that a licensed broker may charge additional expenses 'related to acquiring and selling the ticket.' Sellers on D's website can sell by auction, fixed price, or declining price. D receives a 25% commission from each sale: 15% of the selling price from the seller, and 10% added to the total sales price due from the buyer. The majority of P tickets sell on StubHub for prices greatly in excess of face value. StubHub offers buyers its 'FanProtect Guarantee' if the tickets are invalid, or are not honored by the venue. This guarantee is limited to two claims or a lifetime maximum of $1,000. D also has a LargeSellers classification and provides special price concessions and concealment concessions to them because of the volumes of sales on the site. D allows LargeSellers to 'mask' ticket locations by listing a different row, up to five rows away, then that printed on the original ticket. If the tickets offered are further than five rows from the original ones, or are in a different section, the LargeSeller must provide D with the actual location and obtain approval before confirming the order. That exact location, however, is not passed on to the buyer until he or she receives the tickets. P began noticing a larger number of patrons seeking admission through canceled tickets purchased through StubHub. These incidents created serious problems for P. On November 21, 2006, P requested that D immediately stop facilitating the resale of P's tickets. D refused to comply and P sued for tortious interference with contractual and prospective contractual relations. D moved for partial summary judgment. The focus of this motion for partial summary judgment is on a single count, alleging intentional interference with advantageous relations.