Live Nation calls ticket-buyers’ data request ‘fishing expedition’

Live Nation has pushed back against ticket-buyers seeking to access usage data from its ticketing websites as part of a lawsuit alleging market dominance abuse.

Olivia Van Iderstine and Mitch Oberstein filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of California in April accusing Ticketmaster and its parent company of abusing their market dominance to charge “extraordinarily high fees” on ticket purchases.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster hit back with a motion to take the issue to arbitration, as cited in its terms and conditions. The firms argue that consumers have to agree to the T&C’s at least three times, which include a mandatory arbitration provision and a waiver of class action rights.

However, the recent discovery motion filed by the pair asked the courts to force the live entertainment giants to share data relating to its ticketing websites to prove the frequency that consumers click on the terms and conditions, alleging they are deliberately hidden.

The firm said in response to the motion: “Plaintiffs’ discovery motion is a fishing expedition that has no bearing on defendants’ pending motion to compel arbitration. It should be denied”.

However, a prior statement from the pair’s lawyer states: “As they have in other cases, defendants argue that plaintiffs agreed to arbitration clauses that are buried in terms of use on [the Ticketmaster and Live Nation websites] and the Ticketmaster mobile application. The terms of use are presented to users in a ‘browsewrap’-type format that does not affirmatively require consumers to read the terms, or indicate they have read them, before making a purchase.

“Plaintiffs intend to show on opposition that [the Ticketmaster and Live Nation websites] are designed in a way to actively dissuade consumers from knowing or understanding that the terms of use are something they can or should read.

“If it turns out that, as plaintiffs suspect, the vast majority of users do not view the terms of use, that would tend to show that the website and app provide insufficient notice of the terms of use, and thus the arbitration agreement contained in it.”