Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`Tiasha Palikovic (pro hac vice)
`Steven L. Wittels (pro hac vice)
`J. Burkett McInturff (pro hac vice)
`WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
`18 Half Mile Road
`Armonk, New York 10504
`Telephone: (914) 319-9945
`Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
`tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com
`slw@wittelslaw.com
`jbm@wittelslaw.com
`
`Andrew W. Ferich (pro hac vice)
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`201 King of Prussia Rd., Suite 650
`Radnor, PA 19087
`Telephone: (310) 474-9111
`Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
`aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`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
`Telephone: (310) 474-9111
`Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`Henry J. Kelston (pro hac vice)
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5C
`New York, NY 10038
`Telephone: (310) 474-9111
`Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
`hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`IN RE STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION
` Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`
`STUBHUB, INC.’S RENEWED (AND
`AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`Date: May 5, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 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
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (4:20-md-02951-HSG)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 3
`StubHub’s Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration Should Be Denied.
`A.
`(Responding to Def.’s Point IV.a.i.) .................................................................. 3
`StubHub’s Latest “Investigation” Fails to Show Mobile Users
`1.
`Agreed to Arbitrate. .............................................................................. 3
`Defendant Does Not—and Cannot—Prove that the Mobile
`a.
`Checkout Screen Disclosure Was Sufficient ............................ 3
`Defendant Fails to Prove that the Registration Screen
`Disclosures Were Sufficient. .................................................... 7
`Defendant Provides No Evidence of the Registration
`i.
`Sign-Up Screen or the Applicable UA for any of the
`Non-Android Mobile User Plaintiffs ............................ 7
`The Registration Sign-Up Screen Provided to Android
`Mobile User Plaintiffs Did Not Provide Sufficient
`Notice of the UA. .......................................................... 7
`Defendant’s New Argument About the Sufficiency of
`Website Sign-Ins Is Unavailing. ............................................... 8
`This Court Has Already Rejected Defendant’s Equitable Estoppel
`Argument and There Is No Reason to Revisit Its Decision.
`(Responding to Def.’s Point IV.a.ii.) ................................................... 10
`Plaintiffs’ CCAC Is Well-Pleaded and StubHub’s Motion to Dismiss
`Should Be Denied in its Entirety. (Responding to Def.’s Point IV.b.i.) .......... 11
`Plaintiffs Wutz and Koble Have Standing. (Responding to Def.’s
`1.
`Point IV.b.i.). ....................................................................................... 12
`a.
`Plaintiff Wutz Adequately Alleges Money Damages. ............ 12
`b.
`Plaintiff Koble Adequately Alleges Money Damages ............ 13
`The Mobile Users Have Sufficiently Demonstrated Statutory
`Standing and Pleaded Their Claims with Particularity.
`(Responding to Def.’s Point IV.b.ii.) ................................................... 15
`a.
`Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Pleaded Reliance. ....................... 15
`b.
`The CCAC Meets the Requisite Level of Particularity. ......... 18
`The Mobile User Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claims Should Be Sustained.
`(Responding to Def.’s Point IV.b.iii.) ................................................. 19
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`ii.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`- i -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (4:20-md-02951-HSG)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Should Be
`Sustained. (Responding to Def.’s Point IV.b.iv.) ................................ 24
`Plaintiffs’ Non-California Statutory Claims Are Pleaded in the
`Alternative. (Responding to Def.’s Point IV.b.v.) ............................... 25
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 26
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (4:20-md-02951-HSG)
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group,
`No. C 17-04989 JSW, 2018 WL 3069444 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018) ......................................... 11
`Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Tr. Co., N.A.,
`403 F. Supp. 3d 765 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................... 13
`Bakhtiar v. FCA US LLC,
`No. 20-CV-06522-ODW (JEMx), 2021 WL 4776260 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2021) ........................ 22
`Bentley v. The Control Grp. Media Co.,
`No. 19-CV-2437-DMS-RBB, 2020 WL 3639660 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) ................................. 11
`Beyer v. Symantec Corp.,
`333 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................................................................... 20
`Brock v. Concord Auto. Dealership LLC,
`No. 14-CV-01889-HSG, 2016 WL 829074 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016) ......................................... 14
`Chevron Products Co. v. Advance Corrosion Technologies & Training, LLC,
`No. 20-CV-09095-CRB, 2021 WL 2156467 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2021) ...................................... 25
`Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.,
`137 S. Ct. 973 (2017) .................................................................................................................... 13
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 13, 14
`Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-03952-HSG, 2016 WL 454083 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016) .................................... 15, 17
`In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010,
`No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 3684306 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2021) .................................................... 13
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 15, 18
`Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-00711-HSG, 2016 WL 5210935 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) ..................................... 16
`Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 10-CV-02176-LHK, 2011 WL 3501715 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) ..................................... 20
`Larson v. Speetjens,
`No. C 05-3176 SBA, 2006 WL 2567873 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2006) ............................................. 11
`Lazar v. Superior Court,
`12 Cal. 4th 631 (1996) .................................................................................................................. 18
`Maestas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-02597-KJM-KJN, 2018 WL 1518762 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018) ...................... 19, 23
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`- iii -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`
`McCarthy v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`No. 8:18-cv-00201-JLS-KES, 2018 WL 6318841 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) ............................. 23
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) .................................................................................................................... 11
`Moore v. Apple, Inc.,
`73 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................... 20
`Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................... 11
`Neu v. Terminix Intern., Inc.,
`No. C 07-6472 CW, 2008 WL 2951390 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................... 23
`Patterson v. RW Direct, Inc.,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................... 23
`Resnick v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`No. CV 16–00593–BRO (PJWx), 2017 WL 1531192 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) ....................... 24
`Robinson v. J.M. Smucker Co.,
`No. 18-CV-04654-HSG, 2019 WL 2029069 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2019) ........................................ 19
`Rothman v. Equinox Holdings,
`No. 2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRWx, 2021 WL 124682 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021) .................... 17, 18
`Rubenstein v. The Gap, Inc.,
`14 Cal. App. 5th 870 (2017) ......................................................................................................... 24
`Sabbag v. Cinnamon,
`No. 5:10-CV-02735-JF HRL, 2010 WL 8470477 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010) .............................. 21
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-02200-HSG, 2016 WL 6563348 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) ....................................... 14
`Shultz v. TTAC Publ’g, LLC,
`No. 20-CV-04375-HSG, 2020 WL 6937818 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2020) .................................... 6, 8
`SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC,
`29 Cal. App. 5th 146 (2018) ......................................................................................................... 25
`Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.,
`393 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................... 15, 18
`Snarr v. Cento Fine Foods Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-02627-HSG, 2019 WL 7050149 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2019) ..................................... 18
`Stewart v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc.,
`304 F. Supp. 3d 894 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................... 20, 23, 24
`United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.,
`848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................... 18
`Van v. LLR, Inc.,
`962 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`- iv -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`Statutes
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 ................................................................................................................. 21, 22
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1784 ....................................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Bryan Alexander, Electric Daisy Carnival officially canceled for 2020,
`rescheduled for May 2021, USA TODAY (Aug. 2, 2020, 7:41 p.m.) ............................................ 12
`eBay, Inc. Form 10-K Annual Report (January 31, 2020),
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000106508820000006/
`ebay201910-k.htm ........................................................................................................................ 21
`Electric Daisy Carnival Officially Canceled for 2020, Founder Announces,
`BILLBOARD (Aug. 2, 2020) ............................................................................................................ 12
`Electric Forest 2020 Canceled Due to Coronavirus,
`BILLBOARD (Apr. 21, 2020) .......................................................................................................... 12
`The StubHub FanProtectTM Guarantee (April 26, 2011),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110426170206/http://www.stubhub.com/guarantee/ .................. 16
`
`
`
`Rules
`Civil L.R. 7-9 ...................................................................................................................................... 4
`Fed. R. App. P. 4 ................................................................................................................................. 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .......................................................................................................................... 19, 21
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 ................................................................................................................ 2, 18, 20, 25
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant
`StubHub, Inc.’s Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 70
`(“Motion” or “Mot.”).1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Despite three opportunities to do so, StubHub has failed to prove that it provided constructive
`notice of the User Agreement (“UA”) and arbitration provision to the eight Plaintiffs who purchased
`tickets on the StubHub mobile application (“Mobile Users”). Defendant first failed to carry its burden
`in its Motion to Compel Arbitration, when it “made only passing reference,” Dkt. No. 62 (“Order”)
`at 12, to the mobile application and instead falsely suggested that app users “can access and review
`the [UA] via links made available during registration, sign-in, and purchasing processes.” Declaration
`of Todd Northcutt, Dkt. No. 39-1 (“First Northcutt Decl.”) ¶ 12. After Plaintiffs noted at oral
`argument that the disclosures presented to mobile purchasers are not the same as those presented to
`a website purchaser, April 22, 2021 Hearing Transcript (“Hr’g Tr.”) 43:6–14, the Court gave
`Defendant a second opportunity to carry its burden, inviting it to “provide any materials reflecting
`relevant differences between the processes for purchasing tickets on the website as compared to the
`mobile application,” Dkt. No. 58 at 2. When Defendant failed to do so, the Court ruled that StubHub
`“has not met its burden of establishing that these eight Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to
`arbitrate.” Order at 13–14. Nevertheless, StubHub received a third opportunity to prove that Mobile
`Users were on notice of the UA and show the Court the checkout or the registration screens presented
`in the app. StubHub did neither, curiously claiming that doing so is “difficult.”2 Dkt. No. 70-1,
`
`
`1 Four days after its filing deadline, StubHub filed a revised version of this Motion (Dkt. No. 71),
`seeking neither leave of Court nor Plaintiffs’ consent to do so. Though StubHub claims its late filing
`merely “clarifies” its Motion, the filing in fact reflects a change in strategy and significantly broadens
`the scope of its Motion by seeking to dismiss the claims of all 56 Plaintiffs, rather than the 8 mobile
`purchaser Plaintiffs that its timely-filed Motion is directed against. Id. at 2, 11 n.5. The Court should
`strike this “Amended Renewed” motion because it was filed in disregard of the Court’s rules and the
`parties’ agreed-upon schedule. There is nothing unfair about holding StubHub to this standard.
`StubHub is a sophisticated party represented by capable attorneys and it was the movant in this round
`of briefing—there is no reason it could not have timely finalized its arguments. Conversely, allowing
`StubHub to flout deadlines and present Plaintiffs with a moving target undermines the equitable
`nature of the Court’s ground rules and sets a problematic precedent going forward.
` Equally curious is that Defendant does provide the registration screens presented to the two
`Android users. Third Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.
`- 1 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (4:20-md-02951-HSG)
`
` 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
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Declaration of Todd Northcutt (“Third Northcutt Decl.”), ¶ 3. But Plaintiffs’ investigation shows that
`StubHub’s withholding also has strategic value, since it is clear that neither the checkout nor the
`registration screens on the app provide constructive notice of the UA.
`Indeed, rather than lay its cards on the table, StubHub attempts a new trick and presents to
`the Court an entirely novel theory of notice: that Mobile Users manifested assent to the UA not when
`they purchased tickets or even signed in on the app, but when they visited StubHub’s website on
`other, unrelated occasions. Even putting aside the procedural impropriety of a new legal argument at
`this stage of the proceedings—and the fact that all of this is evidence that StubHub could have
`presented over a year ago when it filed its motion—the Court should reject Defendant’s attempt to
`use website visits as a basis for compelling Mobile Users to arbitrate because it is critically flawed
`in numerous ways: not all users visited the website, not all website visits resulted in the presentation
`of a sign-in screen, and all website visits were substantively and temporally disconnected from—and
`often occurred after—the ticket purchase. Thus, because StubHub still fails to show that it provided
`constructive notice of its arbitration provision to the Mobile Users, the Court’s Order should stand.
`StubHub’s dismissal arguments are just as unavailing. First, the claim that Plaintiffs Koble
`and Wutz should be dismissed because they suffered no injury is controverted by the undisputed fact
`that they paid $384.27 and $1,966.83, respectively, for tickets to events that never took place, and for
`
`which they never received a refund, though one was promised to both of them by the FanProtectTM
`Guarantee. Second, StubHub’s attempt to dismiss the Mobile Users’ FAL, CLRA, and UCL by claiming
`that the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“CCAC”) “contains nothing more than conclusory
`allegations of reliance,” Mot. at 12, is equally ill-considered. Pointing to a single, inapposite case and
`just one of the nearly 500 paragraphs in CCAC, Defendant ignores not only the extensive allegations
`of Plaintiffs’ reliance on the FanProtectTM Guarantee, its materiality, and StubHub’s prolonged and
`pervasive marketing of it, but also the multiple cases from this Court which make clear that the
`Mobile Users adequately plead reliance. Likewise, StubHub’s half-hearted Rule 9(b) challenge fails,
`as there can be no doubt that the 80-page CCAC sufficiently apprises StubHub of its alleged
`wrongdoing. Third, Defendant’s claim that the CLRA count should be dismissed because Plaintiffs
`failed to allege that StubHub knew “that COVID-19 would occur” also misses the mark; that is not
`- 2 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (4:20-md-02951-HSG)
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`
`what the statute requires and Plaintiffs adequately allege that StubHub knew its supposed
`“Guarantee” was instead always subject to StubHub’s unfettered discretion. Fourth, StubHub’s
`argument for dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim fails for the same reasons: the detailed
`CCAC includes express allegations of reliance on a guarantee that StubHub knew to be false. Fifth,
`because they are properly pleaded in the alternative, and because the Court’s choice of law analysis
`should be performed at the class certification stage, the Mobile Users’ non-California claims should
`not be dismissed at this juncture. The Court should deny StubHub’s motion in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A. StubHub’s Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration Should Be Denied. (Responding to
`Def.’s Point IV.a.i.)
`
`1. StubHub’s Latest “Investigation” Fails to Show Mobile Users Agreed to Arbitrate.
`StubHub fails to present any facts or arguments that would justify overturning the Court’s
`November Order. Defendant’s renewed attempt to compel arbitration fails because StubHub does
`not—and cannot—provide the critical evidence it needs to show that Mobile Users are presented
`with adequate notice of StubHub’s UA during checkout.
`a. Defendant Does Not—and Cannot—Prove that the Mobile Checkout Screen
`Disclosure Was Sufficient
`Defendant was permitted to supplement the record for Mobile Users—for the second time—
`with respect to the one issue the Court deemed critical to the arbitration inquiry: the disclosure seen
`during the checkout process. Indeed, this checkout screen disclosure (rather than the disclosure seen
`during registration or sign-in) is what Defendant urged the Court to focus on, expressly arguing that
`“[t]he Court need not even reach that issue [of the timing of registration] because each Plaintiff was
`notified of and assented to the operative StubHub User Agreement in existence at the time they made
`their purchases at issue in this case.”3 Dkt. No. 48 (Def.’s Reply) at 3. During the parties’ oral
`argument in April, the Court acknowledged the checkout screen disclosure as the cornerstone of
`Defendant’s arbitration argument:
`
`3 Defendant’s framing was strategic and allowed it to sidestep the question of which version of the
`agreement was in effect during each Plaintiff’s registration (an issue raised by Plaintiffs). See Dkt.
`No. 44, Pls.’ Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Compel Arb. at 15–20; Dkt. No. 48, Def.’s Reply at 6–8.
`- 3 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`
`The defendants are making . . . a pretty straightforward argument,
`which is, we look at the date of the purchase of the tickets and we look
`at what the disclosures looked like on that date. And then we do the
`assessment of what was disclosed to reach the question of whether
`there was adequate notice so as to give rise to a finding of assent.
`
`Hr’g Tr. 11:6–11. The Court adopted Defendant’s focus, noting that “all that matters is what happens
`on the day of the purchase because this is a case about purchasing tickets. . . . I just look at the date
`of the purchase” Id. at 11:14–20. Defense counsel agreed: “The time that matters is when these
`plaintiffs purchased tickets.” Id. at 25:4–5. After Plaintiffs noted at oral argument that the disclosure
`presented to a mobile purchaser during checkout is not the same as the one presented to a website
`purchaser, and that Defendant failed to carry its burden of showing otherwise, Hr’g Tr. 43:6–14, the
`Court provided Defendant with an opportunity to supplement the record on this narrow issue, inviting
`it to “provide any materials reflecting relevant differences between the processes for purchasing
`tickets on the website as compared to the mobile application,” Dkt. No. 58 at 2.
`But because Defendant’s supplemental response, Dkt. No. 59-1, “did not offer any
`screenshots or evidence for the sign in or checkout processes on the mobile application,” the Court
`ultimately denied Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration with respect to Mobile Users. Order at
`12. In its Order, the Court exclusively focused on the manifestation of assent during the “checkout
`process flow” and, in contrast to its analysis of Mobile Users, the Court expressly premised its grant
`of Defendant’s motion against website purchasers on the finding that “the checkout process web flow
`was sufficient to provide constructive notice of the User Agreement and arbitration provision to both
`registered users and guests . . . .” Id. at 6, 8. Defendant did not move for reconsideration or file a
`notice of appeal of the Court’s Order.4 Nevertheless, during the parties’ December 7, 2021 Case
`Management Conference, Defendant requested an opportunity to supplement the factual record once
`more with evidence concerning the mobile checkout screen disclosures, which the Court granted.
`
`
`4 The applicable Local Rule regarding reconsideration requires a moving party to, inter alia, “show
`reasonable diligence in bringing the motion [for leave to file a motion for reconsideration].” Civil
`L.R. 7-9(a) and (b). Given that more than three months have passed since the Court’s Order, any
`attempt to seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration would run afoul of the Local Rules.
`Moreover, the deadline to file an appeal of the portion of the Order denying arbitration as to the
`Mobile Users was December 22, 2021, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
`- 4 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Despite having a third opportunity to do so, Defendant has again failed to provide any evidence of
`the notice StubHub claims to have provided to mobile purchasers during checkout.
`The reason for StubHub’s continual concealment is obvious: the design of the checkout
`process on its app is materially different from that on its website and would not withstand the Court’s
`scrutiny. Unlike the website checkout screen analyzed by the Court, where notice of StubHub’s UA
`is “[d]irectly below the “Sign in’ and ‘Continue as guest’ buttons, id. at 6 and also shown in Image 2
`below, notice of the UA is not evident on the mobile checkout screen presented to the user, as
`depicted in Image 1 below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Image 2, taken from Declaration of Todd Northcutt, Dkt.
`Image 1, taken from Exhibit 2, Declaration of Andrew W.
`Ferich (“Ferich Decl.”), submitted herewith
`No. 59-1 (“Second Northcutt Decl.”), ¶ 15
`In fact, as depicted below in Images 1, 3 and 4, a mobile user can only see the UA disclosure if they
`scroll down (that is, on a typical device, swipe up on the touchscreen). But a user has no reason to
`think doing so is necessary, since all of the information relevant to their purchase is already displayed,
`including the date and time of the event, the location of the seat, and the price and quantity of tickets.
`Likewise, a user has no reason to think that swiping up is even possible, since nothing about the way
`the page is designed suggests that a portion of the screen is obscured: there are no arrows pointing
`down and no visible scroll bar on the side, and none of the text or imagery is cut off. Thus, As
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`
`depicted in Image 1 above and Image 3 below, a mobile user can finalize a purchase and click “Buy
`now” without ever having seen the UA disclosure:
`
`
`
`
`
`Image 3, taken from Exhibit 3, Ferich Decl.
`Image 4, taken from Exhibit 4, Ferich Decl.
`Moreover, the screen that initiates the checkout process urges the purchaser not to spend time on this
`step and instead quickly “Check out before someone gets your tickets!” Ferich Decl. ¶¶ 12–13 and
`Exhibit 7 thereto. Thus, because the Court found that “the StubHub [website] checkout screen does
`not contain other distracting design elements that obscure the disclosure on the page[,]” Order at 11,
`it must instead find that “the design and content of the [mobile] checkout screen distracts users from
`recognizing the existence of, and the need to review” the UA. Shultz v. TTAC Publ’g, LLC, No. 20-
`cv-04375, 2020 WL 6937818, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2020) (Gilliam, J.). Thus, despite the Court
`having given Defendant yet another “opportunity to respond and ‘provide any materials reflecting
`relevant differences between the processes for purchasing tickets on the website as compared to the
`mobile application,’” Defendant provided no such evidence. Order at 12 (citing Dkt. No. 58). There
`is therefore no reason for the Court to reverse its holding: because “Defendant did not offer any
`screenshots or evidence for the sign in or checkout processes on the mobile application,” there is
`“insufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that these eight Plaintiffs received adequate notice
`of the arbitration agreement when they purchased their tickets on the mobile application.” Order at
`12–13 (emphasis added) (citing Dkt. No. 58).
`
`
`- 6 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED (AND AMENDED RENEWED) MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (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 78 Filed 03/04/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`
`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. Defendant Fails to Prove that the Registration Screen Disclosures Were
`Sufficient.
`Rather than show the mobile checkout screens, Defendant first attempts to sidestep the issue
`by directing the Court to the mobile registration screens instead. But this attempt also fails because
`Defendant provides no evidence of the registration screen shown to the six non-Android users, and
`the registration screens shown to the two Android users do not provide sufficient notice of the UA.
`i. Defendant Provides No Evidence of the Registration Sign-Up Screen or the
`Applicable UA for any of the Non-Android Mobile User Plaintiffs
`The Court expressly rejected Defendant’s prior attempt to circumvent the lack of disclosures
`during the checkout process by claiming that the mobile purchasers had “agreed to the terms of the
`User Agreement as part of the registration process.” Id. at 12. The Court explained that Defendant
`had not met its burden of establishing that these eight Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to arbitrate
`during the registration process because Defendant did not provide answers to either of the following
`two questions: (i) “what sign-up screen these eight Plaintiffs saw when they registered,” and (b)
`“[which] User Agreement [was] in place at the time each Plaintiff registered.” Id. at 12. With the
`exception of Plaintiffs Koble and Glaspey (who registered via the Android app, and whose
`disclosures were deficient for other reasons noted below), Defendant still fails to provide any answers
`to either question for any o