Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 84
`
`
`
`
`Tina Wolfson (SBN 174806)
`Theodore W. Maya (SBN 223242)
`Bradley K. King (SBN 274399)
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`Tel: (310) 474-9111
`Fax: (310) 474-8585
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
`Tiasha Palikovic*
`Steven L. Wittels*
`J. Burkett McInturff*
`18 HALF MILE ROAD
`ARMONK, NEW YORK 10504
`Telephone: (914) 319-9945
`Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
`slw@wittelslaw.com
`jbm@wittelslaw.com
`tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com
`(*pro hac vice)
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`) Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`)
`) CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`) COMPLAINT
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`) Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., presiding
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs Angelo Gobaleza, Dianna Gomez, Anjora Hansen, Kenneth Kruger, Brittany
`McKenzie, Alexis Moran Sandoval, Anthony Fattori, Richard Huante, Anabel Avalos, Deanna Cook,
`Hazel Dominguez, Matthew Fogg, Dennis Dwyer, Paul Koble, Lisa Molidor, David Dahl, Brian Moore,
`Jennifer Williams, Casey Moyer, Brendan Carroll, Brittany Knight, Amanda Matlock, Gary Ward,
`Yolanda Gordils, William Mignault, Jeff Thomas, Josiah Burkhardsmeier, Bonnie Lee Risch, Scot
`Hudson, Amy Ebeling, Jim Harris, Katherine Morales, Adjani Janvie Delgado Rivera, Fiana Burshteyn,
`Brett Allison Kushner, Stephanie Wood, Benjamin Wutz, Candace Reece Cooper, Sheila Green, Laura
`Lym-Murphy, Julie Metz, Crystal Ashley Davis, Ernie Glaspey, Conrad Markwalder, Reginald
`McDaniel, Michael Reaggs, Derrick Weaver, Brian Abeyta, Amy Gutierrez, Adam Schiefer, Don
`Anderson, Emma Goodacre, Bob Kenna, Theresa Gren, Jennifer Lively, and Matthew McMillan
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, file this Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint against Defendant StubHub, Inc. (“StubHub” or “Defendant”), individually and on behalf of
`a class of similarly situated individuals, and allege, upon personal knowledge as to their own actions,
`and upon investigation of counsel as to all other matters, as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiffs bring this Consolidated Class Action Complaint to stop StubHub’s egregious
`bait and switch practice that passes the financial hardship of the COVID-19 pandemic to the consumers
`who are already under dire financial stress as a result of the pandemic. StubHub enticed Plaintiffs and
`the Class to purchase tickets with its “FanProtectTM Guarantee,” which promised that consumers would
`get 100% of their money back if events are canceled, and it had built the StubHub brand around this
`trademarked term for at least fourteen years. But when consumers needed that guarantee the most after
`COVID-19 caused financial ruin to many in the United States, StubHub unilaterally and surreptitiously
`redefined the terms of the guarantee so that it could keep the cash it collected for ticket prices and service
`fees rather than return it to the consumers as originally promised, despite being recently acquired by
`Viagogo for $4 billion. Instead, StubHub began offering useless credits that may well expire prior to the
`end of the pandemic. Plaintiffs beseech the Court to force StubHub to comply with the terms of the
`bargain it made and return the cash back to the consumers who purchased tickets for events that have
`been or will be canceled.
`
`1
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 84
`
`
`
`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.
`Furthermore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an order to prevent StubHub from
`unilaterally changing the terms of the “FanProtectTM Guarantee” to revoke the 100% money back term
`in the event of a cancellation, as it originally meant and has meant for at least fourteen years.
`3.
`As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on with no predictable end in sight, StubHub continues
`to mislead consumers into purchasing tickets for events that are currently scheduled but may well be
`canceled because of the pandemic or other reasons by continuing to publicize and market the
`“FanProtectTM Guarantee” without clear and conspicuous disclosures that this guarantee no longer means
`a cash refund (as it has for at least fourteen years) and because StubHub further fails to disclose its
`position that it can unilaterally change the meaning of that guarantee at any time. Consumers who can
`afford to purchase entertainment tickets continue to do so under the erroneous assumption that the
`“FanProtectTM Guarantee” means what it originally meant for at least 14 years: 100% cash back in the
`event of a cancellation. Plaintiffs beseech the Court to order StubHub to disseminate clear, conspicuous,
`and prolific corrective advertising to educate consumers that when they purchase tickets with StubHub,
`they will not get cash back, may get the expiring credits StubHub currently offers, or may get something
`else or even nothing at all, because StubHub continues to assert that it has the right to change the
`definition of this guarantee unilaterally at any time.
`OVERVIEW OF DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL PRACTICES
`4.
`This case arises during a time of hardship for so many Americans, with each day bringing
`different news of the efforts to combat the novel coronavirus. Beginning in early March 2020, social
`distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and efforts to “flatten the curve” prompted the nationwide
`cancellation of sporting events, concerts, and other large gatherings as most of the country locked down.
`StubHub is the “world’s largest ticket marketplace” and, for at least fourteen years prior to COVID-19,
`had made a “FanProtectTM Guarantee” that ticket purchasers like Plaintiffs would receive full cash
`refunds for canceled events. The COVID-19 cancellations and StubHub’s trademarked guarantee should
`have meant that StubHub ticketholders like Plaintiffs were promptly refunded their hard-earned
`money—money consumers now need more than ever in a time when many of StubHub’s customers have
`lost their jobs and are suffering financial hardship. Yet after the pandemic hit, StubHub retroactively
`changed its cash refund policy and began refusing consumers the refunds long-promised by the
`2
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 4 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`FanProtectTM Guarantee. Instead, StubHub began offering expiring coupons for future purchases on its
`website. And if this practice is not stopped by the Court, there is nothing to prevent StubHub from yet
`again redefining this guarantee to mean whatever suits StubHub.
`5.
`This is a bait and switch on a global scale. The FanProtectTM Guarantee is the bedrock of
`StubHub’s business model and has been part of its marketing since at least 2006. In February 26, 2020,
`just weeks before the pandemic hit, at a hearing before the House of Representatives Committee on
`Energy and Commerce, Stephanie Burns, StubHub’s Vice President and General Counsel, testified that
`“StubHub’s FanProtect Guarantee is the hallmark of our business and it is why we have earned the trust
`of fans around the globe.”1 And in October 2019, for example, Defendant’s website stated in multiple
`places that “[y]ou’ll get a refund if your event is canceled and not rescheduled.”2
`6.
`The whole point of the FanProtectTM Guarantee is that it placed the risk of loss onto
`StubHub. This assumption of risk is what allowed StubHub to convert the largely underground scalper
`market into more than $1 billion in annual revenue and to be acquired for $4 billion in February 2020
`by Viagogo. The consuming public relied on this guarantee in purchasing their tickets from StubHub.
`Yet the truth is that StubHub’s assumption of the risk turned out to be hollow. As soon as the risk
`materialized, the company went back on its agreement with consumers en masse. To be sure, the
`COVID-19 pandemic is a catastrophic event beyond StubHub’s control, but the inescapable reality is
`that the costs of this catastrophe must fall on the party that explicitly assumed the risk. This is precisely
`what risk-assumption commercial insurance is for, and the profit StubHub received in its acquisition was
`for, and it is precisely why StubHub has for years guaranteed that the cancellation risks would fall on
`itself rather than consumers.
`7.
`In the early days of COVID-19, StubHub appeared to be taking the high road. On March
`8, 2020, StubHub’s President emailed StubHub customers to “personally reach[] out to you regarding
`the current Coronavirus situation” because “[w]e know it’s an unsettling time for everyone and our hearts
`
`
`1 Available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20200226/110588/HHRG-116-IF02-Wstate-
`BurnsS-20200226.pdf.
`2 Defendant recently scrubbed StubHub’s website of these references but Google’s cache prevented
`these items’ erasure from the Internet.
`
`3
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 5 of 84
`
`
`
`go out to those impacted.” The email’s subject line was “Coronavirus Update: We have your back” and
`was meant to reassure customers that “StubHub is here for you.” (Emphasis in original.) Consistent
`with StubHub’s FanProtectTM Guarantee, the email also emphasized that “[i]f you bought tickets on
`StubHub to an event that is canceled, you have two options:
`1. Receive a full refund of your purchase
`2. Receive a coupon for 120% of your original purchase
`(Emphasis in original.)
`8.
`Yet just days later, StubHub changed tack, abandoning its longstanding FanProtectTM
`Guarantee and starting to refuse consumers’ refund requests. On March 25, 2020, without so much as an
`email to consumers, StubHub surreptitiously changed the terms of its FanProtectTM Guarantee on the
`backpages of its website, then stating that “if the event is canceled and not rescheduled, you will get a
`refund or credit for use on a future purchase, as determined in StubHub’s sole discretion (unless a refund
`is required by law).”
`9.
`On March 27, 2020, Sports Business reporter Darren Rovell tweeted3 about StubHub’s
`new policy and observed as follows:
`
`
`Instead of full refunds for canceled events, they changed it to a COUPON
`worth 20% more than the value of the ticket. As pointed out by
`@don_shano, this is not only absurd (fans deserve their $ back), it’s
`unethical and likely illegal.
`10.
`StubHub responded that “[w]e appreciate our fans & want to create an offer of value
`given the difficult circumstances. To thank fans for their patience we are offering 120% credit. We will
`continue to provide refunds to buyers where required by law. This model is common practice in a number
`of industries.”4
`11.
`This was public relations drivel. As one consumer noted “[t]he funny part about this is
`that there’s a 20% surcharge/fee for tickets, so basically @StubHub is just waiving a fee for a future
`
`
`3 Available at: https://twitter.com/stubhub/status/1243738305658830851.
`4 Id.
`
`4
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 6 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`purchase LOL.”5 Another consumer correctly observed “[a]s a buyer you pay 20% or more in fees so
`your [sic] just giving them an interest free loan. That also doesn’t include the risk of them going out of
`business.”6 Other consumers just asked for lawyers.7
`12. Worse, on March 27, 2020, StubHub posted a “Coronavirus update” on its website stating
`that when an event is canceled, StubHub would charge resellers to recoup the amounts buyers had paid
`for canceled events. In other words, StubHub possesses funds it collected from resellers for tickets to
`now-canceled events. This money belongs to ticket buyers like Plaintiff, but StubHub has improperly
`decided to convert those funds for its own use.
`13.
`Today, StubHub continues to use the FanProtectTM Guarantee trademark and prominently
`displays it on its website home page:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`Consumers who have been exposed to more than a decade of StubHub’s marketing of the
`FanProtectTM Guarantee as meaning money back in the event of a cancellation, continue to buy tickets
`based on that understanding. The appearance of StubHub’s homepage does nothing to dispel this
`understanding, nor has StubHub conducted a corrective advertising campaign to explain to the
`consumers that the terms of the FanProtectTM Guarantee no longer means money back, and that StubHub
`can change the promise of the guarantee at any time.
`15.
`Plaintiffs and the Class of consumers they seek to represent have been injured by
`
`
`
`5 Id.
`6 Available at: https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1243710053066182658.
`7 Id.
`
`5
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`StubHub’s unlawful practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class defined below seek an immediate
`public injunction requiring StubHub to honor its longstanding refund policy, to preclude StubHub from
`unilaterally changing the terms of the guarantee or, alternatively, to proliferate clear, conspicuous, and
`extensive corrective advertising to notify consumers that the FanProtectTM Guarantee no longer means a
`cash refund, and that StubHub maintains it can change the meaning of the guarantee unilaterally at any
`time. Alternatively, the Court should order StubHub to stop using the FanProtectTM Guarantee logo and
`disseminate corrective advertising to the public to explain that the guarantee is no longer in effect.
`Plaintiffs further seek and award of damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorneys fees, and costs.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`16.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount
`in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 and is a class
`action in which there are more than 100 class members and diversity of citizenship exists between at
`least one member of the Class and Defendant.
`17.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant’s principal place
`of business is located in this District, Defendant is registered to and does conduct continuous, permanent,
`and substantial business activities in California and within this District, and a substantial portion of its
`acts complained of took place in California.
`18.
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant resides and
`conducts substantial business within this District and a substantial part of the events that gave rise to
`Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`California Plaintiffs
`19.
`Plaintiff Angelo Gobaleza is a resident and citizen of San Diego, California. On January
`6, 2020, Plaintiff Gobaleza purchased tickets to the April 10, 11, and 12, 2020, Coachella Valley Music
`and Arts Festival in Indio, California. Plaintiff Gobaleza paid for the tickets through StubHub, which
`included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic
`impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all
`non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Coachella Valley
`6
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`Music and Arts Festival for which Plaintiff Gobaleza had purchased tickets through StubHub was
`canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Gobaleza for this
`ticket purchase.
`20.
`Plaintiff Dianna Gomez is a resident and citizen of San Diego, California. On October 5,
`2019 and October 6, 2019, Plaintiff Gomez purchased tickets to the April 5, 2020, Billie Eilish concert
`in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff Gomez paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a
`processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the
`United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential
`businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Billie Eilish concert for which
`Plaintiff Gomez had purchased tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM
`Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Gomez for this ticket purchase.
`21.
`Plaintiff Anjora Hansen is a resident and citizen of San Diego, California. On January 29,
`2020, Plaintiff Hansen purchased tickets to the April 2, 2020, Toronto Blue Jays vs. New York Yankees
`MLB game in Bronx, NY. On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff Hansen also purchased tickets to the March
`26, 2020, San Diego Padres vs. Colorado Rockies MLB game in San Diego, California. Plaintiff Hansen
`paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In
`March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local
`governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of
`people. Subsequently, the Toronto Blue Jays vs. New York Yankees MLB game and the San Diego
`Padres vs. Colorado Rockies MLB game for which Plaintiff Hansen had purchased tickets through
`StubHub were canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff
`Hansen for these ticket purchases.
`22.
`Plaintiff Kenneth Kruger is a resident and citizen of Palo Alto, California. On January 6,
`2020, Plaintiff Kruger purchased tickets to the April 11 and 12, 2020, Coachella Valley Music and Arts
`Festival in Indio, California. Plaintiff Kruger paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a
`processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the
`United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential
`businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Coachella Valley Music and
`7
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 9 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`Arts Festival for which Plaintiff Kruger had purchased tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite
`its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Kruger for this ticket purchase.
`23.
`Plaintiff Brittany McKenzie is a resident and citizen of Sacramento, California. On
`February 24, 2020, Plaintiff McKenzie purchased tickets to the April 25, 2020, Adam Lambert concert
`in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff McKenzie paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a
`processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the
`United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential
`businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Adam Lambert concert for
`which Plaintiff McKenzie had purchased tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its
`FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff McKenzie for this ticket purchase.
`24.
`Plaintiff Alexis Moran Sandoval is a resident and citizen of Earlimart, California. On
`February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Sandoval purchased tickets to the April 10, 11, and 12, 2020, Coachella
`Valley Music and Arts Festival in Indio, California. Plaintiff Sandoval paid for the tickets through
`StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-
`19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders
`closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the
`Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival for which Plaintiff Sandoval had purchased tickets through
`StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff
`Sandoval for this ticket purchase.
`Arizona Plaintiffs
`25.
`Anthony Fattori is a resident and citizen of Sun Tan Valley, Arizona. On January 13,
`2020, Plaintiff Fattori purchased tickets to the April 29, 2020, Kesha concert in Phoenix, Arizona.
`Plaintiff Fattori paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly
`to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many
`state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large
`gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Kesha concert for which Plaintiff Fattori had purchased tickets
`through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund
`Plaintiff Fattori for this ticket purchase, and instead provided a credit that expired in December, 2020.
`8
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 10 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`On July 24, 2020, fearful he would lose his money, Plaintiff Fattori purchased tickets to the September
`21, 2020, Five Seconds of Summer concert, in Phoenix, Arizona, which has now also been postponed to
`June 22, 2021.
`26.
`Plaintiff Richard Huante is a resident and citizen of Glendale, Arizona. On May 10, 2020,
`Plaintiff Huante purchased tickets to the August 27, 2020, Arizona Cardinals vs. Las Vegas Raiders
`Preseason NFL game in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff Huante paid for the tickets through StubHub, which
`included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic
`impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all
`non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Arizona Cardinals
`vs. Las Vegas Raiders Preseason NFL game for which Plaintiff Huante had purchased tickets through
`StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff
`Huante for this ticket purchase.
`Florida Plaintiffs
`27.
`Plaintiff Anabel Avalos is a resident and citizen of Miami Lake, Florida. On December
`18, 2019, Plaintiff Avalos purchased tickets to the March 19, 2020 Miami Heat v. Chicago Bulls
`Basketball game in Miami, Florida. Plaintiff Avalos paid for the tickets through StubHub, which
`included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic
`impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all
`non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Miami Heat v.
`Chicago Bulls Basketball for which Plaintiff Avalos had purchased tickets through StubHub was
`canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Avalos for this
`ticket purchase.
`28.
`Plaintiff Deanna Cook is a resident and citizen of Miami Shores, Florida. On February
`12, 2020, Plaintiff Cook purchased tickets to the August 22, 2020 Journey & The Pretenders concert in
`West Palm Beach. Plaintiff Cook paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee
`that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and,
`as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and
`prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Journey & The Pretenders concert for which
`9
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 11 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff Cook had purchased tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM
`Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Cook for this ticket purchase.
`29.
`Plaintiff Hazel Dominguez is a resident and citizen of Boca Raton, Florida. On March 1,
`2020, Plaintiff Dominguez purchased tickets to the July 24, 2020 Aventura Reunion concert in Miami,
`Florida. Plaintiff Dominguez paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that
`went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as
`a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and
`prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Aventura Reunion for which Plaintiff
`Dominguez had purchased tickets through StubHub was postponed indefinitely. Despite its FanProtectTM
`Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Dominguez for this ticket purchase.
`30.
`Plaintiff Matthew Fogg is a resident and citizen of St. Petersburg, Florida. On February
`2, 2020, Plaintiff Fogg purchased tickets to the July 25-26, 2020 Tomorrowland Festival in Belgium.
`Plaintiff Fogg paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly
`to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many
`state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large
`gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Tomorrowland Festival for which Plaintiff Fogg had purchased
`tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund
`Plaintiff Fogg for this ticket purchase.
`Georgia Plaintiffs
`31.
`Plaintiff Dennis Dwyer is a resident and citizen of Atlanta, Georgia. On March 15, 2020,
`Plaintiff Dwyer purchased tickets to the June 11, 2020 Yaeji concert in Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiff Dwyer
`paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In
`March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local
`governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of
`people. Subsequently, the Yaeji concert for which Plaintiff Dwyer had purchased tickets through
`StubHub was postponed indefinitely. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund
`Plaintiff Dwyer for this ticket purchase.
`32.
`Plaintiff Paul Koble is a resident and citizen of Newnan, Georgia. On May 8, 2020,
`10
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 12 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff Koble purchased tickets to the November 8, 2020 Denver Broncos and Atlanta Falcons game
`in Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiff Koble paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing
`fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States
`and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and
`prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Denver Broncos and Atlanta Falcons game for
`which Plaintiff Koble had purchased tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM
`Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Koble for this ticket purchase.
`Illinois Plaintiff
`33.
`Plaintiff Lisa Molidor is a resident and citizen of Volo, Illinois. On January 17, 2020,
`Plaintiff Molidor purchased tickets to the March 20, 2020 Blake Shelton concert in Milwaukee,
`Wisconsin. Plaintiff Molidor paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that
`went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as
`a result, many state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and
`prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Blake Shelton concert for which Plaintiff
`Molidor had purchased tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee,
`StubHub has failed to refund Plaintiff Molidor for this ticket purchase.
`Indiana Plaintiffs
`34.
`Plaintiff David Dahl is a resident and citizen of New Haven, Indiana. On February 20,
`2020, Plaintiff Dahl purchased tickets to the July 18, 2020 MLB game in Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff
`Dahl paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly to
`StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many
`state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large
`gatherings of people. Subsequently, the MLB game for which Plaintiff Dahl had purchased tickets
`through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund
`Plaintiff Dahl for this ticket purchase.
`35.
`Plaintiff Brian Moore is a resident and citizen of Muncie, Indiana. On February 24, 2020,
`Plaintiff Moore purchased tickets to the May 24, 2020 Indianapolis 500 in Indianapolis, Indiana.
`Plaintiff Moore paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly
`11
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 4:20-MD-02951-HSG
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 36 Filed 01/08/21 Page 13 of 84
`
`
`
`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
`
`to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many
`state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large
`gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Indianapolis 500 for which Plaintiff Moore had purchased
`tickets through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to
`refund Plaintiff Moore for this ticket purchase.
`36.
`Plaintiff Jennifer Williams is a resident and citizen of Greenville, Indiana. On March 6,
`2020, Plaintiff Williams purchased tickets to the March 18, 2020 Indiana Pacers vs. Golden State
`Warriors basketball game in Indianapolis, Indiana. Plaintiff Williams paid for the tickets through
`StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-
`19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many state and local governments issued orders
`closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting large gatherings of people. Subsequently, the Indiana
`Pacers vs. Golden State Warriors basketball game for which Plaintiff Williams had purchased tickets
`through StubHub was canceled. Despite its FanProtectTM Guarantee, StubHub has failed to refund
`Plaintiff Williams for this ticket purchase.
`Louisiana Plaintiff
`37.
`Plaintiff Casey Moyer is a resident and citizen of Shreveport, Louisiana. On February 3,
`2020, Plaintiff Moyer purchased tickets to the March 14, 2020 Jon Pardi concert in Houston, Texas.
`Plaintiff Moyer paid for the tickets through StubHub, which included a processing fee that went directly
`to StubHub. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the United States and, as a result, many
`state and local governments issued orders closing all non-essential businesses and prohibiting l