StubHub’s Motion for Arbitration of COVID Refund Lawsuit Declined StubHub’s Motion for Arbitration of COVID Refund Lawsuit Declined
StubHub could not manage to compel arbitration of refund denial claims by plaintiffs who bought tickets via its mobile application, since it has failed... StubHub’s Motion for Arbitration of COVID Refund Lawsuit Declined

StubHub could not manage to compel arbitration of refund denial claims by plaintiffs who bought tickets via its mobile application, since it has failed to show an arbitration provision notice for the customers, as U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled. The consumers demanded refunds for the canceled or rescheduled events due to COVID-19 pandemic previously, accusing the company of modifying its “full refund” policy prior to 2020’s March.

The consumer lawsuit claims that StubHub displayed deceptive attitude by giving purchasers a 120% credit instead of offering a money back guarantee when an event was canceled.

In November 2021, the consumers who bought their tickets to the canceled or rescheduled events through web browser were compelled to arbitration because they were on notice of the company’s arbitration provision, the court ruled. However, it was not the case for the users that experienced the same process through StubHub’s mobile application. Finding it was unclear whether purchasers via the mobile app had registered as users through the app or website before, and what specific notice each received, Judge Gilliam declined to compel arbitration.

Renewing its motion for arbitration for mobile app customers by defending that the consumers assented to the arbitration agreement when they visited the company’s website at various points before and after the purchasing process, StubHub sought dismissal in May 2022, but company’s arguments were declined by the court as unsupported.

StubHub was found to fail to provide any authority for its argument that customers who sign into their online account after buying tickets should know that signing in subjects their earlier purchase to the user agreement. The judge also objected to the impact of signing in on future purchases. “StubHub,” the judge wrote, “fails to explain” why signing in months before a purchase would furnish customers with “notice that they were bound by the User Agreement for all future purchases.” He emphasized that at “the time they signed into their accounts on the website, they were not purchasing tickets.”

Whether the case should be certified as a class action on behalf of Americans who purchased tickets on StubHub to events that were canceled due to the pandemic or not is going to be clear at the hearing in December 2022 unless the parties reach an out-of-court agreement.

Last Updated on June 3, 2022 by Dave Clark

No comments so far.

Be first to leave comment below.

Your email address will not be published.