`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)
`ak@kazlg.com
`Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. (SBN: 319105)
`nicholas@kazlg.com
`KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
`245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626
`Telephone: (800) 400-6808
`Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
`
`[Additional Counsel On Signature Page]
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`BRUCE BROUILLETTE,
`Individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Vivid Seats LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`PUBLIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES
`AND RESTITUTION FOR VIOLATIONS
`OF:
`
`1. CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT,
`CAL. CIVIL CODE §§ 1750, ET SEQ.;
`
`
`
`
`2. FALSE ADVERTISING LAW, CAL.
`BUS. & PROF. §§ 17500, ET SEQ.;
`
`
`3. UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL.
`BUS. & PROF. §§ 17200, ET SEQ.;
`
`
`4. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
`AND
`
`
`5. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats LLC
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Bruce Brouillette (“Mr. Brouillette” or “Plaintiff”) brings this
`1.
`Class Action Complaint for public injunctive relief to protect the consuming public
`in California from the deceptive advertising and business practices of defendant,
`Vivid Seats LLC (“Vivid Seats” or “Defendant”) with regard to Defendant’s false
`and misleading promotion of its tickets as having a “100% Buyer Guarantee,” and to
`obtain recompense for California consumers who purchased one or more event
`tickets for events that were cancelled and for which a full refund was not provided
`by Defendant.
`2.
`Defendant falsely and misleadingly promotes its ticketing services as
`having a “100% Buyer Guarantee”, meaning that “[i]f an event is canceled with no
`rescheduled date, [consumers] are naturally entitled to a full refund of the purchase
`price, including delivery charges.” However, when Plaintiff tried to invoke this
`guarantee to receive refunds on events canceled due to COVID-19, Defendant
`refused to provide Plaintiff with a full refund.
`3.
`Consequently, several of Defendant’s advertised claims are false and
`misleading.
`Plaintiff makes these allegations as follows upon personal knowledge
`4.
`as to Plaintiff’s own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon
`information and belief, including investigation conducted by Plaintiff’s attorneys.
`5.
`Defendant’s nationwide sale and advertising of deceptively misbranded
`products constitutes violations of: (1) California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act
`(“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.; (2) California’s False Advertising Law
`(“FAL”), Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.; (3) California’s Unfair Competition
`Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (4) negligent misrepresentation;
`and (5) intentional misrepresentation.
`6.
`This conduct caused Plaintiff and others similarly situated damages and
`requires restitution and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent further harm.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s name in this
`7.
`Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs,
`successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives and
`insurers of the named Defendant.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d),
`8.
`because this is a proposed class action in which: (i) the matter in controversy exceeds
`the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; (ii) members of the
`proposed Class are citizens of a State different from Defendants; and (iii) the number
`of Class Members is greater than 100.
`9.
`Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with California and has
`otherwise intentionally availed itself of the markets in California through the
`promotion, marketing, and sale of its products and services, sufficient to render the
`exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair
`play and substantial justice.
`10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) and (3)
`because: (i) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims
`occurred in this District; (ii) Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction
`with respect to this action because Defendant conducts business in this judicial
`district; and (iii) plaintiff Mr. Brouillette resides within this judicial district.
`
`PARTIES
`11. Mr. Brouillette is a natural person residing in the City of Huntington
`Beach, State of California.
`12. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation that is
`organized and exists under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place
`of business in Chicago, Illinois.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13. Defendant resells tickets to consumer events, such as concerts or
`sporting events. Defendant conducts extensive business through internet sales
`within the United States, including California.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`14. Vivid Seats is a secondary ticket marketplace that connects ticket
`sellers with ticket buyers.
`15. Sellers can post tickets for sale on Vivid Seats’ online platform, where
`buyers can view and purchase tickets. In exchange, Vivid Seats charges the buyer
`and seller a fee. For example, a seller is typically charged 10% of the total sale price.
`16. Buyers are charged a service fee and delivery fee or electronic transfer
`fee, which can be more than 25% of the total sales price for a single ticket.
`17.
`In order for this business model to work, Vivid Seats requires a steady
`influx of sellers so that there are always tickets for sale on the platform.
`18. To incentivize ticket sellers to use Defendant’s platform, Defendant
`would quickly pay the ticket sellers, even if the event the ticket related to had not
`yet occurred.
`19. Until recently, Defendant’s “Seller Terms and Conditions” stated that
`“sellers typically receive payments issued to their registered Paypal accounts not
`more than fourteen (14) business days after delivery to buyer, regardless of method
`of delivery , unless otherwise agreed to by Vivid Seats. For events that are more than
`100 days from the date of the sale, Sellers receive payment approximately 90 days
`from the date of the event.”
`20. Defendant advertises on its website that every ticket purchase comes
`with a 100% Buyer Guarantee, which was “designed to give you full peace-of-mind,
`safety, and security.”
`21. Vivid Seats further claimed that “[i]f an event is canceled with no
`rescheduled date, you are naturally entitled to a full refund of the purchase price,
`including delivery charges. For events that are rescheduled, we will assist you with
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 3
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:5
`
`
`any ticket reissuing concerns or help you sell your tickets if the new date is no longer
`desirable to you.”
`22. Defendant heavily advertises the “100% Buyer Guarantee” by
`including it in commercials in large text and through Defendant’s constant reminder
`on banners throughout its website that the consumer’s purchase comes with a “100%
`Buyer Guarantee”.
`23. Below are some banners that appear on Defendant’s website.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24. According to Defendant, Defendant’s 100% Buyer Guarantee entices
`millions of consumers to choose Defendant over other similar services.1
`25. However, by ensuring that the sellers had cash available to continue
`purchasing tickets to other events, Defendant gave up the capital that was needed to
`provide its consumers with the “full refund” that Defendant had promised.
`26. Defendant knew, or should have known, that it did not have enough
`capital to provide its consumers with a full refund as it had advertised. In fact, this
`
`1 https://www.vividseats.com/vivid-seats-experience (Last accessed Oct. 26, 2020)
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:6
`
`
`is exactly what happened when Covid-19 pandemic occurred.
`27. After the United States shut down in March of 2020 due to the COVID-
`19 pandemic, all entertainment events were canceled, with no rescheduling.
`28. At first, Defendant continued to promise consumers that “[i]f a
`customer purchased tickets to an event that is canceled with no rescheduled date,
`they are entitled to a full refund of the purchase price, including delivery charges,
`per Vivid Seats’ 100% Buyer Guarantee. There is no need to take any action, and
`our award-winning customer service team will contact customers directly regarding
`next steps.”2
`29. Defendant has continued to refuse to honor the 100% Buyer Guarantee,
`and instead has forced customers to accept only future, “Rewards Cash loyalty
`credit”.
`30. Furthermore, Defendant has now voluntarily changed the language of
`the 100% Buyer Guarantee from “you will be refunded for a cancelled event” to
`“you will be compensated for a cancelled event.”
`31. Despite promising consumers full refunds, Defendant now is
`attempting to unilaterally minimize its exposure by changing its website’s language
`and by refusing to give consumers refunds.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`33. On or about March 1, 2020, Mr. Brouillette purchased two tickets to
`see The Rolling Stones in concert on May 8, 2020, which costs a total of $1,632.82.
`34. On or about March 17, 2020, The Rolling Stones announced that they
`would be canceling their 2020 tour due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
`
`
`2https://web.archive.org/web/20200407050613/https://support.vividseats.com/supp
`ort/solutions/articles/11000083676-information-regarding-the-coronavirus-impact
`(Last accessed on October 26, 2020).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`35. On or about March 18, 2020, Mr. Brouillette called Vivid Seats to get
`a refund. Vivid Seats stated that they were going to look into the matter. However,
`Vivid Seats never got back to Mr. Brouillette, nor did they give him any timetable
`on when the investigation would be resolved. After several calls, Vivid Seats never
`provided Mr. Brouillette with a refund.
`36. Still not having any luck getting a refund from Vivid Seats directly, on
`April 13, 2020, Mr. Brouillette attempted to dispute his charges with his credit card
`servicer, Discover. However, after an investigation, Discover left the charges on Mr.
`Brouillette’s account because it determined the charges were “valid based on the
`merchant’s documentation.”
`37. To date, Mr. Brouillette has not received any kind of refund for the
`tickets he purchased.
`38. At the time Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s tickets, Plaintiff believed
`and relied upon Defendant’s representation that the tickets came with a 100% Buyer
`Guarantee that allowed the Plaintiff to get a full refund in the event of a cancellation
`of their event without rescheduling.
`39. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant’s tickets came with a
`100% Buyer Guarantee.
`40. Plaintiff would like to purchase tickets using Defendant’s platform
`again in the future but is concerned about being further mislead by Defendant.
`41. All of the tickets purchased through Defendant’s website contain
`identical or substantially similar representations regarding the nature of the tickets.
`42. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
`known that it could not provide a full refund to all its consumers, thus Defendant
`knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials were misleading or false.
`43. As a consequence of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive advertising and
`manufacturing practices, Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated purchased
`and overpaid to use Defendant’s platform under the false impression that the tickets
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 6
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:8
`
`
`were backed by a “100% Buyer Guarantee” that would allow purchasers to get a full
`cash refund if there is a cancellation without a reschedule.
`44. Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated in California purchased
`and overpaid to use Defendant’s platform under the misrepresentations that
`Defendant’s that the tickets were backed by a “100% Buyer Guarantee” that would
`allow purchasers to get a full cash refund if there is a cancellation without a
`reschedule.
`If Plaintiff had been aware that the there was no “100% Buyer
`45.
`Guarantee”, Plaintiff would have paid less to use Defendant’s marketplace or would
`have purchased the tickets on a different platform. In other words, Plaintiff would
`not have purchased tickets through Defendant but for the representations on the
`Defendant’s website.
`46. Plaintiff and others similarly situated were exposed to and relied upon
`the same material misrepresentations made on Defendant’s website.
`47. As a result of Defendant’s false and misleading statements, Plaintiff
`and other similarly situated consumers purchased thousands, if not tens or hundreds
`of thousands, of tickets on Defendant’s marketplace, and have suffered, and continue
`to suffer, injury in fact through the loss of money and/or property.
`48. This action seeks, among other things, public injunctive relief,
`restitution of all amounts illegally obtained, and disgorgement of any and all ill-
`gotten gains as a result of the misconduct alleged herein.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`50. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated against Defendant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
`51. Subject
`to additional
`information obtained
`through
`investigation and/or discovery, the proposed class (the “Class”) consists of:
`
`further
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 7
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`All persons residing in California who used Vivid Seats to
`purchase one or more tickets to any event which was
`subsequently canceled or constructively canceled at any point
`within four years prior to the filing of this action until the date
`that notice of this class action is disseminated to the Class, and
`to whom Defendant has not provided a full refund, including all
`fees.
`
`52. Excluded from the Class is Defendant and any of its officers, directors,
`and employees, or anyone who purchased Defendant’s Product for the purpose of
`resale. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the Class definition before the
`Court determines whether certification is appropriate.
`53. The “Class Period” means four years prior to the filing of the Complaint
`in this action.
`54. Ascertainability. The members of the Class are readily ascertainable
`from Defendant’s records and/or Defendant’s agent’s records of online sales.
`55. Numerosity. The members of the Class are so numerous that their
`individual joinder is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believe that millions of
`people have used Defendant’s online ticket platform, and on that basis, Plaintiff
`alleges that the putative Class consists of hundreds, if not thousands of members
`within California.
`56. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact.
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. All
`members of the Class have been subject to the same conduct and their claims are
`based on the same standardized marketing, advertisements and promotions. The
`common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`a. Whether the Defendant falsely advertised that all tickets came with a
`guarantee that the consumer could get their money back;
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 8
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`b. Whether Defendant did not retain enough capital to actually give all of
`its consumers a refund;
`c. Whether Defendant’s claims and representations, as alleged herein, are
`untrue, misleading, and/or reasonably likely to deceive the average
`consumer;
`d. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates California Civil Code §§ 1750,
`et seq.;
`e. Whether Defendant’s advertising is false, untrue, or misleading within
`the meaning of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et
`seq.;
`f. Whether Defendant’s conduct is an unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful act
`or practice within the meaning of California Business & Professions
`Code §§ 17200, et seq.;
`g. Whether Defendant’s advertising is unfair, deceptive, untrue or
`misleading within the meaning of California Business & Professions
`Code §§ 17200, et seq.;
`h. Whether Defendant acted negligently or intentionally in making the
`misrepresentations contained on Defendant’s website and other
`advertising mediums as explained above;
`i. Whether Defendant, through its conduct, received money that, in equity
`and good conscience, belongs to Plaintiff and members of the Class;
`j. Whether Plaintiff and the putative Class members are entitled to
`equitable relief, including but not limited to restitution and/or
`disgorgement of ill-gotten gains; and
`k. Whether Plaintiff and the putative Class members are entitled to
`injunctive relief as sought herein.
`57. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members
`of the Class in that Plaintiff is a member of the Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 9
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:11
`
`
`Similar to members of the putative Class, Plaintiff purchased the tickets after
`exposure to the same material misrepresentations and/or omissions appearing on
`Defendant’s website. Plaintiff also received tickets that Defendant did not have the
`capital to provide refunds for in the chance of a cancelation. Plaintiff is advancing
`the same claims and legal theories on behalf of themselves and all absent members
`of the Class. Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.
`58. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately
`protect the interests of the members of the putative Class. Plaintiff has retained
`counsel experienced in consumer protection law, including class actions, and
`specifically, false and deceptive advertising. Plaintiff has no adverse or antagonistic
`interest to those in the Class and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
`the Class. Plaintiff’s attorneys are aware of no interests adverse or antagonistic to
`those of Plaintiff and proposed Class.
`59. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for
`the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individualized litigation would
`create the danger of inconsistent and/or contradictory judgments arising from the
`same set of facts. Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense
`to all parties and the court system. The damages or other financial detriment suffered
`by individual Class members may be relatively small compared to the burden and
`expense that would be entailed by individual litigation of the claims against the
`Defendant. The injury suffered by each individual member of the proposed class is
`relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution
`of the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. It
`would be virtually impossible for members of the proposed Class to individually
`redress effectively the wrongs to them. Even if the members of the proposed Class
`could afford such litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation of
`the complex legal and factual issues of such a case increases the delay and expense
`to all parties, including the court. By contrast, the class action device presents far
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 10
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:12
`
`
`fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication,
`economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Therefore, a
`class action is maintainable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
`60. Unless the Class is certified, Defendant will retain monies received as
`a result of Defendant’s unlawful and deceptive conduct alleged herein. Unless a
`class-wide injunction is issued, Defendant will also likely continue to, or allow its
`resellers to, advertise, market, promote, and sell its tickets in an unlawful and
`misleading manner, and members of the Class will continue to be misled, harmed,
`and denied their rights under California law.
`61. Further, Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that are
`generally applicable to the class so that declaratory and injunctive relief is
`appropriate to the Class as a whole, making class certification appropriate pursuant
`to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
`VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
`CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750, ET SEQ.
`
`62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`63. California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq., entitled the Consumers
`Legal Remedies Act (hereinafter “CLRA”), provides a list of “unfair or deceptive”
`practices in a “transaction” relating to the sale of “goods” or “services” to a
`“consumer.” The Legislature’s intent in promulgating the CLRA is expressed in
`Civil Code Section 1760, which provides, inter alia, that its terms are to be:
`
`Construed liberally and applied to promote its underlying
`purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair
`and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient
`and economical procedures to secure such protection.
`
`64. Defendant’s tickets constitute a “good” as defined pursuant to Civil
`Code Section 1761(a).
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 11
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`65. Plaintiff and the putative Class members are each a “consumer” as
`defined pursuant to Civil Code Section 1761(d).
`66. Plaintiff and each of the putative Class members’ purchase of
`Defendant’s tickets constitutes a “transaction” as defined pursuant to Civil Code
`Section 1761(e).
`67. Civil Code Section 1770(a)(2), (5), (7) and (9) provide that:
`The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
`deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
`transaction intended to result or which results in the sale
`or lease of goods or services to any consumer are
`unlawful:
`
`(2) [m]isrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or
`certification of goods or services;
`
`(5) [r]epresenting that goods or services have sponsorship,
`approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
`quantities which they do not have …;
`
`(7) [r]epresenting that goods or services are of a particular
`standard, quality, or grade … if they are of another; [and]
`
`(9) [a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to sell
`them as advertised.”
`
`68. Defendant violated Civil Code Section 1770(a)(2), (5), (7) and (9) by
`marketing and representing its tickets as coming with a “100% Buyer Guarantee”
`that would provide consumers with a full refund in case of a cancellation without a
`rescheduling. However, in reality, Defendant was not retaining the capital needed to
`provide refunds for its consumers, and thus could not provide every consumer with
`a refund as it advertised.
`69. On information and belief, Defendant’s violations of the CLRA, as set
`forth herein, were done with awareness of the fact that the conduct alleged was
`wrongful and was motivated solely by Defendant’s self-interest, monetary gain, and
`increased profit. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant committed these acts
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:14
`
`
`knowing the harm that would result to Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in such
`unfair and deceptive conduct notwithstanding such knowledge.
`70. Plaintiff suffered an “injury in fact” because Plaintiff’s money was
`taken by Defendant as a result of Defendant’s false and misleading representations
`set forth on Defendant’s website and other advertising mediums as explained above.
`71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of the
`CLRA, Plaintiff and members of the putative Class are entitled to a declaration that
`Defendant violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
`72. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the affidavit of Plaintiff pursuant to
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(d).
`73. Plaintiff and the putative Class are also entitled to, and seek, injunctive
`relief prohibiting such conduct in the future and to recover money damages.
`74. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Complaint to assert damages
`under the CLRA under Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a).
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
`VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (“FAL”)
`BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500, ET SEQ.
`75. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`76. Plaintiff and Defendant are both “person[s]” as defined by California
`Business & Professions Code § 17506.
`77. California Business & Professions Code § 17535 authorizes a private
`right of action on both an individual and representative basis.
`78. Defendant advertises its platform as providing consumers with a
`“100% Buyer Guarantee” that ensures consumers will receive a full refund on any
`event that is canceled without rescheduling, when, in fact, Defendant did not
`maintain the capital to provide consumers with full refunds, and now refuses to
`provide consumers with full refunds.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 13
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`79. These misrepresentations, acts, and non-disclosures by Defendant
`constitute false and misleading advertising in violation of Business & Professions
`Code §§ 17500, et seq.
`80. At all times relevant, Defendant’s advertising and promotion of its
`Products was, and is, untrue, misleading, and likely to deceive the reasonable
`consumer and the public. In fact, Defendant did deceive Plaintiff and the putative
`Class members through the above described representations.
`81. Defendant engaged in the false and/or misleading advertising and
`marketing its online marketplace, as alleged herein, with the intent to directly or
`indirectly induce consumers to purchase tickets to events using its platform, which
`Defendant knew, or had reason to know, did not have the properties that Defendant
`alleged.
`82. Because Defendant knew or should have known that the representations
`and/or omissions alleged herein were untrue or misleading, Defendant acted in
`violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.
`83. Had Defendant truthfully advertised that it could not provide consumer
`with a guaranteed refund for canceled events, Plaintiff and the putative Class
`members would not have purchased tickets to events through Defendant, or would
`have paid less to Defendant.
`84. This false and misleading advertising by Defendant presents a
`continuing threat to consumers, as Defendant still claims on its website that tickets
`come with a “100% Buyer Guarantee” including compensation for canceled events.
`85. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and
`omissions by Defendant, Defendant received and continues to hold monies rightfully
`belonging to Plaintiff and the putative Class members, who were led to purchase
`tickets on Defendant’s platform during the Class Period.
`//
`//
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Brouillette v. Vivid Seats
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 8:20-cv-02133 Document 1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
`VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (“UCL”)
`BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.
`
`86. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the above
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`87. Plaintiff and Defendant are each a “person” as defined by California
`Business & Professions Code § 17201. California Business & Professions Code §
`17204 authorizes a private right of action on both an individual and representative
`