`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, STAY PROCEEDINGS,
`AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`[Filed concurrently with Declaration of Todd
`Northcutt and Exhibit thereto and [Proposed]
`Order]
`
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`Date: April 15, 2021
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 2
`
`
`
`
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`William P. Donovan, Jr. (SBN 155881)
`Daniel R. Campbell (Pro Hac Vice)
`Emilie E. O'Toole (Pro Hac Vice)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2049 Century Park East
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
`Telephone:
`(310) 277-4110
`Facsimile:
`(310) 277-4730
`wdonovan@mwe.com
`dcampbell@mwe.com
`eotoole@mwe.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant StubHub, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`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 ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 15, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California, in Courtroom 2, of the above-entitled Court, located at
`1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Defendant StubHub, Inc. (“StubHub”) will and hereby does
`move the Court for an order compelling arbitration of all causes of action for relief asserted against
`Defendant by Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on or about January 8, 2021
`(the “Complaint” or “CAC”) based on the valid and binding arbitration clause in the StubHub
`Marketplace Global User Agreement (“User Agreement” or “StubHub User Agreement”) that all
`Plaintiffs were on notice of and agreed to by using StubHub for the alleged ticket purchases at issue.
`The Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “Motion”) should be granted pursuant to the Federal
`Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., because—as Plaintiffs readily admit in their Complaint—
`transactions with StubHub are governed by the StubHub User Agreement. Indeed, the operative
`arbitration clause in the User Agreement has already—and recently—been upheld in the federal
`courts in the cases of Ajzenman v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 2020 WL 6037140 (C.D.
`Cal. Sept. 14, 2020) and Barnes v. StubHub, Inc., 2019 WL 11505575 (S.D. Fla. October 3, 2019) in
`materially identical circumstances. Plaintiffs were clearly notified of the User Agreement and
`assented to its terms when they created their StubHub accounts, signed into their StubHub accounts,
`used StubHub’s site and services, and/or purchased tickets through StubHub as a user or a guest.
`Because the User Agreement contains a binding class action waiver and arbitration provision
`governing the instant dispute, the claims alleged in the Complaint should be sent to arbitration on an
`individual basis and this lawsuit either dismissed or stayed. Punctuating the appropriateness of
`compelling arbitration is the fact that all Plaintiffs expressly sue to enforce the StubHub User
`Agreement and are therefore estopped from challenging the arbitration provision as unconscionable.
`StubHub bases its Motion on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, the argument of counsel, and any other
`matters that may come before the Court.
`
`- 1 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2021
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`William P. Donovan, Jr. (SBN 155881)
`Daniel R. Campbell (pro hac vice)
`Emilie E. O’Toole (pro hac vice)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
`Tel: (310) 277-4111
`Fax: (310) 277-4730
`wdonovan@mwe.com
`dcampbell@mwe.com
`eotoole@mwe.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant StubHub, Inc.
`
`
`- 2 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................2
`A.
`The Parties. ..................................................................................................................2
`B.
`Allegations Against StubHub. .....................................................................................2
`C.
`The StubHub Ticket Marketplace. ...............................................................................3
`D.
`Plaintiffs Accepted The StubHub User Agreement During The StubHub
`Registration, Sign-In, and/or Purchasing Process. .......................................................4
`The StubHub User Agreement and Arbitration Provision. ..........................................7
`E.
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................10
`STUBHUB’S ARBITRATION PROVISION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER SHOULD
`BE ENFORCED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ..........................................................................11
`A.
`Plaintiffs Agreed To The Valid And Enforceable StubHub User Agreement And
`Arbitration Provision. ................................................................................................12
`Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action And Disputes Are Encompassed By The Arbitration
`Provision In The User Agreement. ............................................................................15
`Plaintiffs Concede Their Acceptance of the User Agreement and the Included
`Arbitration Provision By Suing to Enforce It and Alleging its Validity....................17
`Plaintiffs Must Arbitrate Their Causes of Action On An Individual Basis. ..............19
`D.
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint In Its Entirety. ..............................22
`E.
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`- i -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aanderud v. Superior Court,
`13 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2017) ........................................................................................................11
`
`Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group,
`2018 WL 3069444 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018) .......................................................................18, 22
`
`Ajzenman v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball,
`2020 WL 6037140 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020) .................................................................... passim
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ...............................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Barnes v. StubHub, Inc.,
`2019 WL 11505575 (S.D. Fla. October 3, 2019)...............................................................1, 13, 17
`
`Bentley v. The Control Grp. Media Co.,
`2020 WL 3639660 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) ..........................................................................18, 22
`
`Beserra v. Allied Ins.,
`2015 WL 12826456 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) ...........................................................................21
`
`Boucher v. All. Title Co.,
`127 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2005) ................................................................................................18, 22
`
`Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,
`174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................20
`
`C2 Educational Sys., Inc., v. Lee,
`2018 WL 3328143 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2018) ................................................................................20
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
`207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Clifford v. Quest Software Inc.,
`38 Cal. App. 5th 745 (Ct. App. 2019), review denied (Nov. 13, 2019) .......................................21
`
`Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Blue Cross of Calif.,
`83 Cal. App. 4th 677 (2000) ........................................................................................................15
`
`Colopy v. Uber Techs. Inc.,
`2019 WL 6841218 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) .............................................................................22
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) .........................................................................................................11, 12, 15
`- ii -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`DeVries v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
`2017 WL 733096 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017) ...............................................................................13
`
`Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC,
`2019 WL 9096443 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2019) .............................................................................13
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 Fed. Appx. 482 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) ..............................................................................13
`
`Dupler v. Orbitz, LLC,
`2018 WL 6038309 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2018) ................................................................................13
`
`Eiess v. USAA Federal Savings Bank,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 1240 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................22
`
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018) ..................................................................................................................19
`
`Eshagh v. Terminix Int’l Co.,
`588 Fed. Appx. 703 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................19
`
`Graf v. Match.com, LLC,
`2015 WL 4263957 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) ..............................................................................13
`
`Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph,
`531 U.S. 79 (2000) .......................................................................................................................11
`
`Griswold v. Coventry First LLC,
`762 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2014).........................................................................................................18
`
`Guadalupe Police Officer’s Ass’n v. City of Guadalupe,
`2011 WL 13217671 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2011) ...........................................................................21
`
`Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7319358 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) .......................................................................13, 14
`
`In re Holl,
`925 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) .....................................................................................................14
`
`Hopkins & Carley, ALC v. Thomson Elite,
`2011 WL 1327359 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011) ...............................................................................22
`
`Int’l Paper Co., v. Schawbedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH,
`206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................18
`
`Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2018 WL 4726042 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) ............................................................................22
`
`- iii -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Kilgore v. Keybank, N. A.,
`718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) .....................................................................................11
`
`Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`771 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................................11
`
`KPMG LLP v. Cocchi,
`565 U.S. 18 (2011) .......................................................................................................................10
`
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela,
`139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019) ..................................................................................................................11
`
`Larson v. Speetjens,
`2006 WL 2567873 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2006) ........................................................................18, 22
`
`Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC,
`817 Fed. Appx. 393 (9th Cir. June 10, 2020) ........................................................................12, 13
`
`Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
`398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................23
`
`Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.,
`30 Cal. App. 5th 970 (2018) ..........................................................................................................7
`
`Magana v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`343 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................20, 21
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Comm. LLC,
`722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) .........................................................................................................................17
`
`Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................17, 22
`
`Needleman v. Golden 1 Credit Union,
`474 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................................................11
`
`Nitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C. v. Howard,
`568 U.S. 17 (2012) (per curiam) ..................................................................................................11
`
`Peter v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 580 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .............................................................................12, 13, 14
`
`- iv -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Sherwood Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs., N.A., Inc.,
`2018 WL 672515 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) ...........................................................................18, 22
`
`Sponheim v. Citibank, NA.,
`2019 WL 2498938 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) .............................................................................21
`
`Stolt-Nielson S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.,
`559 U.S. 662 (2010) .....................................................................................................................19
`
`Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
`805 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................12, 14
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.,
`140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020) .................................................................................................................21
`
`Yun Park v. MSX Americas, Inc.,
`2019 WL 5285446 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019) ................................................................................18
`
`Statutes
`
`Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.) ..........................................................................10, 23
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114 ................................................................................................................................20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`USPTO Trademarks, “FanProtect,”
`
`https://uspto.report/TM/85281779 (last visited Feb. 11, 2021) ...................................................21
`
`StubHub, Coronavirus Update,
`https://support.stubhub.com/en/support/solutions/articles/61000276296 (last visited Feb. 2,
`2021) ..............................................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Defendant StubHub, Inc. respectfully submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
`support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration.
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The Complaint filed by 56 Plaintiffs and alleging 31 causes of action seeks to avoid existing
`precedent in the Ajzenman and Barnes cases and to dodge contractual commitments to arbitrate
`disputes with StubHub. The CAC, at its core, seeks monetary damages stemming from an alleged
`breach of Plaintiffs’ contract with StubHub. Yet the CAC provides no factual or legal basis to
`accomplish Plaintiffs’ misplaced objective. All Plaintiffs purchased tickets using StubHub
`marketplace after consenting to the current version of the arbitration clause that clearly, and lawfully,
`provides for the arbitration of the instant dispute on an individual basis. None of the 56 Plaintiffs
`can or do contend that any of their claims falls outside of the arbitration provision’s scope. None of
`the 56 Plaintiffs can or do assert they opted out of the arbitration provision. Indeed, the CAC suffers
`from the incurable problem that Plaintiffs seek the benefits of the StubHub User Agreement, namely
`their view that refunds are proper under the contract, while ignoring the binding arbitration provision
`in that very same contract. Plaintiffs are estopped from suing to enforce the User Agreement and
`attempting to disavow, simultaneously, the legal and binding arbitration provision that they find
`unfavorable. Moreover, the predictable attempt in the CAC to plead a public injunctive relief theory
`fails on multiple fronts. First, this is a private dispute among StubHub and certain disgruntled
`customers where the thrust of Plaintiffs’ case is their desire for monetary refunds. Second, there is
`no prospective, public injunctive relief that is warranted under the actual allegations in the CAC.
`Third, even if there were a viable public injunctive relief theory, such a claim would be properly
`stayed pending the arbitrations. Accordingly, StubHub respectfully requests that this Honorable
`Court compel arbitration on all claims in the CAC on an individual basis against all Plaintiffs, and
`otherwise stay any non-arbitrable claims.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The Parties.
`A.
`StubHub is an online ticket marketplace on which users and guests can buy or sell tickets or
`other related passes for theater, concerts, sports events, or other entertainment events. (CAC ¶ 75.)
`StubHub is not the seller of the tickets, but does receive a commission for tickets bought or sold using
`StubHub. (See id. ¶¶ 75, 76; Declaration of Todd Northcutt dated Feb. 9, 2021, ¶ 2) (hereafter,
`“Northcutt Decl.”). Plaintiffs allege they are citizens of Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
`Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
`Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
`Wisconsin. (CAC ¶¶ 19–74.) Each Plaintiff signed up for StubHub when there was an arbitration
`provision. (Northcutt Decl. ¶ 30.) Each Plaintiff alleges the purchase of tickets using StubHub
`between September 12, 2019 and July 24, 2020 for an event that was scheduled to take place in
`2020.1 (CAC ¶¶ 19–74; Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 36–204.)2
`Allegations Against StubHub.
`B.
`Fundamentally, all Plaintiffs are subject to four unassailable truths: (1) they all assented to
`the same arbitration provision when they made the subject ticket purchases at issue in this case; (2)
`they all saw language explaining that by signing up, signing in, and/or purchasing the subject tickets,
`Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the StubHub User Agreement and arbitration provision; (3) none of
`the Plaintiffs ever opted out of the arbitration provision after being notified of their opt-out rights;
`and (4) the Plaintiffs do not allege that any cause of action falls outside of the scope of the arbitration
`provision.
`Plaintiffs generally allege that StubHub failed to issue refunds for events impacted by
`COVID-19. (CAC ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs allege they “viewed and relied upon the FanProtect Guarantee
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs Paul Koble and Richard Huante actually purchased the tickets at issue after StubHub
`modified the User Agreement on March 25, 2020, which is the subject of the instant dispute.
`(Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 107, 95.) Plaintiffs Emma Goodacre and Amy Gutierrez further registered for
`StubHub accounts after March 25, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 72, 84.) Accordingly, these Plaintiffs have no
`claim whatsoever under the facts averred in the CAC.
`2 Appendix A to this Motion and Memorandum provides a chart with detailed information
`regarding each Plaintiff’s sign-up, purchase, and use of StubHub.
`
`- 2 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`prior to their ticket purchases.” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 187.) These admissions show Plaintiffs saw and relied on
`the terms of the StubHub User Agreement, wherein the FanProtect Guarantee resides. (See Northcutt
`Decl. ¶ 7.) The User Agreement upon which Plaintiffs relied to purchase the subject tickets contained
`the same arbitration provision, as well as the same prominent warning of the arbitration provision, at
`all times that Plaintiffs’ purchased the tickets at issue in this action. (Id. ¶¶ 28–30, Ex. A.) Not a
`single Plaintiff opted out of arbitration. (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs do not even allege that their claims fall
`outside the scope of the arbitration provision. Moreover, the same notifications indicating agreement
`to the User Agreement by signing up, signing in, purchasing, or continuing to use StubHub were in
`place at the time of each Plaintiff’s purchase at issue here. (Id. ¶¶ 12–18.) All Plaintiffs received a
`confirmation email subsequent to their respective ticket purchases again notifying them that they
`assented to a contract with StubHub and again providing a bolded, offset colored hyperlink to the
`User Agreement and its binding arbitration provision. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs primarily seek damages
`in the form of refunds as their principal remedy. (CAC at 78–80.)
`The StubHub Ticket Marketplace.
`C.
`StubHub provides an online ticket marketplace; it is not the “seller” of the tickets on its site.3
`(CAC ¶¶ 75, 76; Northcutt Decl. ¶ 2.) Both registered users and guests can utilize the StubHub ticket
`marketplace, but every user, whether registered or a guest, must agree to and accept the StubHub
`User Agreement: no one can buy or sell tickets using StubHub without agreeing to the terms of the
`User Agreement. (Northcutt Decl. ¶ 6.) The StubHub User Agreement contains the terms and
`conditions that govern the relationship between StubHub and one that uses its site or services. (Id. ¶
`9.) A true and correct copy of the current User Agreement, which includes the arbitration provision
`in place when Plaintiffs purchased the tickets at issue in this action through StubHub, is attached to
`the Northcutt Declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`
`3 Plaintiffs concede this fact by alleging that StubHub earns only a fee from ticket transactions
`made using its site and services. (CAC ¶¶ 75, 76.)
`
`- 3 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Accepted The StubHub User Agreement During The StubHub
`Registration, Sign-In, and/or Purchasing Process.
`As the CAC acknowledges, Plaintiffs made their purchases using StubHub’s site and services.
`(See CAC ¶¶ 19–74.) StubHub’s records indicate that all Plaintiffs made the purchases at issue in
`this action between September 12, 2019 and July 24, 2020.4 (Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 36–204.)
`Importantly, none of the Plaintiffs ever allege that they requested a refund and were denied a refund.
`Moreover, some Plaintiffs have received and used the 120% credit provided by StubHub for
`cancelled events. For example, Plaintiff Anthony Fattori purchased tickets on July 24, 2020 for a
`Five Seconds of Summer concert scheduled for June 23, 2021, using the credit he received after the
`cancellation of the Kesha concert he originally purchased tickets for.5 (Id. ¶ 38.)
`As a condition of signing up for their StubHub accounts and/or making their purchases using
`StubHub, Plaintiffs all agreed to the StubHub User Agreement. (See id. ¶ 6.) The operative StubHub
`User Agreement (the “Current User Agreement”) was updated as permitted by the terms of the User
`Agreement, and posted on StubHub’s site, along with a list of all changes thereto, on March 25, 2020.
`(Id. ¶¶ 10, 20, Ex. A.)
`The registered Plaintiffs signed up for their StubHub user accounts by completing the User
`Registration Form. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 36–37, 39–40, 42–43.) A prospective user acknowledges
`acceptance of the StubHub User Agreement (including StubHub’s policies and procedures referenced
`therein) by clicking a “Sign up” button on the StubHub website, found immediately above a statement
`that reads: “By purchasing or signing in, you agree to our user agreement and privacy notice.” (Id.
`¶ 12.)6 The notification contains bold, underlined, and offset color typeface that is hyperlinked to
`the User Agreement and is in close proximity to the “Sign up” button. (Id.)
`
`
`4 Further information regarding the details of each Plaintiffs’ individual purchases is included in the
`Northcutt Declaration. (Id. at ¶¶ 36–204.)
`5 Credits issued by StubHub for events cancelled due to COVID-19 do not expire until December
`31, 2022. See StubHub, Coronavirus Update,
`https://support.stubhub.com/en/support/solutions/articles/61000276296 (last visited Feb. 2, 2021).
`6 App users, as opposed to website users, receive a similar message with bolded text hyperlinks that
`states: “By signing up, you agree to our user agreement and privacy notice.” (Northcutt Decl. ¶
`12.)
`
`
`- 4 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`The same, or substantially similar, language existed in the User Agreement in bold, underlined, and
`offset color type when Plaintiffs created their StubHub accounts and agreed to and accepted the User
`Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
`For Plaintiffs that checked out as a guest, they were notified of and assented to the StubHub
`User Agreement during the checkout and purchase process. When a user—guest or registered—
`checks out and purchases tickets to an event on the website, a pop-up screen displays and states, “By
`purchasing or signing in, you agree to our user agreement and acknowledge our privacy notice.”
`(Id. ¶ 15.)
`
`- 5 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`
`The notice contains hyperlinks, in offset, bolded, and colored typeface, to the current version of the
`StubHub User Agreement, again in bolded and prominent font in close proximity to the guest
`checkout button. (Id.)
`StubHub includes additional mechanisms by which users are notified of and reaffirm
`agreement to the StubHub User Agreement and related policies. When a registered user clicks “Sign-
`In” to log into their StubHub account on the website, a prominent pop-up screen displays and again
`states, “By purchasing or signing in, you agree to our user agreement and acknowledge our privacy
`notice.” (Id. ¶ 17.)
`
`The notices contain hyperlinks, in offset, bolded, and colored typeface, to the current version of the
`StubHub User Agreement, again in bolded and prominent font in close proximity to the sign-in
`button. (Id.) This additional mechanism by which registered users reaffirm agreement to and
`acceptance of the User Agreement, was in place when Plaintiffs made the purchases at issue in this
`case. (Id. ¶ 18.)
`And, in the confirmation email sent to all Plaintiffs after their purchases on StubHub, they
`each received the following notification: “This email was sent to [Plaintiff email address] by
`StubHub, Inc., 199 Fremont Street, Floor 4, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA, which may use affiliates
`to provide StubHub services. Please refer to the user agreement for the contact data of your
`
`- 6 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`contracting party. StubHub is committed to your privacy. Learn more about our privacy notice and
`user agre