`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`03/03/2021
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
`Deputy Clerk
`
`TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
`ANNICK M. PERSINGER (SBN 272996)
`apersinger@tzlegal.com
`10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
`Los Angeles, CA 900024
`Telephone:
`510-254-6808
`Facsimile:
`202-973-0950
`
`TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
`HASSAN A. ZAVAREEI (SBN 181547)
`hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`KATHERINE M. AIZPURU (pro hac vice)
`kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
`1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone:
`(202) 973-0900
`Facsimile:
`(202) 973-0950
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
` Case No. CGC-18-564120
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M.
`PERSINGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS
`CERTIFICATION
`
`REDACTED
`
`Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
`Date: June 1, 2021
`Time: 10:30 a.m.
`Department: 613
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`SUSAN WANG, and RENE LEE, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`STUBHUB, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Action filed: February 5, 2018
`Trial date: February 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M. PERSINGER
`CASE NO. CGC-18-564120
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`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, Annick M. Persinger, declare as follows:
`1.
`Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I am above the age of eighteen and admitted to practice before
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and counsel of record for
`
`this Court. I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge and review of my law firm’s
`
`records. I could and would testify competently to the contents of this declaration if called upon to do
`
`so.
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT A is a true and correct copy of the Expert Report of Dr. Joel
`
`2.
`Steckel dated March 2, 2021.
`3.
`EXHIBIT B is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Joseph Piacenti’s September 4, 2020 deposition
`
`On September 4, 2020, Joseph Piacenti sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT C is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 2 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT D is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 3 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT E is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 4 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`transcript.
`4.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001184 to STUBHUB0001187.
`5.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001169.
`6.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001192 to STUBHUB0001198.
`7.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001170 to STUBHUB0001171.
`8.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001176.
`9.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001159.
`10.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001280 to STUBHUB0001282.
`11.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0009358 to STUBHUB0009360.
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT F is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 5 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT G is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 6 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT H is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 9 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT I is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 10 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT J is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 11 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M. PERSINGER.
`CASE NO. CGC-18-564120
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT K is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 12 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT L is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 19 to Joseph Piacenti’s
`
`12.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0014125 to STUBHUB0014131.
`13.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001163 to STUBHUB0001167.
`14.
`EXHIBIT M is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Wendy Collins’s September 18, 2020 deposition
`
`On September 18, 2020, Wendy Collins sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT N is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 29 to Wendy Collins’s
`
`transcript.
`15.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0006381 to STUBHUB0006387.
`16.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0001033.
`17.
`EXHIBIT P is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Eric Dawson’s October 19, 2020 deposition
`
`On October 19, 2020, Eric Dawson sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT O is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 30 to Wendy Collins’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT Q is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 41 to Eric Dawson’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT R is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 51 to Eric Dawson’s
`
`transcript.
`18.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0024803 to STUBHUB0024804.
`19.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0023870 to STUBHUB0023872.
`20.
`EXHIBIT S is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Adam Wandy’s October 27, 2020 deposition
`
`On October 27, 2020, Adam Wandy sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as
`
`transcript.
`21.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB0000606. This exhibit was originally produced in native format and
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT T is a true and correct copy of exhibit 54 to Adam Wandy’s
`
`has been converted to PDF for purposes of this Declaration.
`22.
`deposition, produced as STUBHUB 0025289 to STUBHUB0025290.
`23.
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT U is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 56 to Adam Wandy’s
`
`On February 9, 2021, Garrett Reeb, StubHub’s designated person most knowledgeable,
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M. PERSINGER
`CASE NO. CGC-18-564120
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as EXHIBIT V is a true and correct copy of excerpts of
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT W is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 68 to Garrett Reeb’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT X is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 70 to Garrett Reeb’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT Y is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 71 to Garrett Reeb’s
`
`Attached hereto as EXHIBIT Z is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 72 to Garrett
`
`Garrett Reeb’s February 9, 2021 deposition transcript.
`24.
`deposition.
`25.
`deposition.
`26.
`deposition.
`27.
`Reeb’s deposition.
`28.
`deposition.
`29.
`deposition.
`30.
`EXHIBIT CC is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Plaintiff Susan Wang’s January 28, 2019
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT AA is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 73 to Garrett Reeb’s
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT BB is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 74 to Garrett Reeb’s
`
`On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff Susan Wang sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as
`
`deposition transcript.
`31.
`EXHIBIT DD is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Plaintiff Rene Lee’s May 3, 2019 deposition
`
`On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff Rene’ Lee sat for a deposition in this case. Attached as
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT EE is a true and correct copy of a document produced as
`
`transcript.
`32.
`P000001.
`33.
`Attached as EXHIBIT FF is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Dr. Joel Steckel’s September 12,
`
`On September 12, 2019, Dr. Joel H. Steckel, Ph.D., sat for a deposition in this case.
`
`2019 deposition transcript.
`34.
`2021 declaration, which was provided to me by StubHub’s counsel.
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT GG is a true and correct copy of Todd Northcutt’s February 18,
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M. PERSINGER
`CASE NO. CGC-18-564120
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`Attached as EXHIBIT HH is a true and correct copy of Adam Tatum’s February 18,
`
`35.
`2021 declaration, which was provided to me by StubHub’s counsel.
`36.
`Zavareei, LLP has extensive experience in complex civil litigation, including serving as lead counsel in
`
`As described in more detail in my firm’s resume, attached as EXHIBIT II, Tycko &
`
`class actions and representing classes with claims under California consumer protection laws.
`37.
`behalf of Plaintiffs and the proposed class. For example, we successfully defeated StubHub’s demurrer
`
`This extensive experience has manifested in our vigorous prosecution in this case on
`
`and motion to compel arbitration on June 11, 2018. We also successfully defeated defendant’s summary
`
`judgment motion on November 5, 2019. Throughout this action, we have undergone substantial
`
`discovery in this case related to whether StubHub operated a bait and switch and whether StubHub
`
`deceptively omitted the true nature of its fees including four fact witness depositions, a Person Most
`
`Knowledgeable Deposition, and obtaining two declarations from StubHub related to their pricing
`
`practices.
`38. My firm has the resources to continue to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the
`proposed Class.
`39.
`required many hours of attorney time to conduct discovery on the core issues in this case. Thus, there
`
`The current costs of this litigation, not including attorney’s fees, are significant and have
`
`is little incentive for individual class members to shoulder the costs and risks of pursuing their claims
`
`against StubHub.
`40.
`pleadings; responding to multiple sets of written discovery (including document requests, special
`
`Plaintiffs Susan Wang and Rene’ Lee have participated in the litigation by reviewing
`
`interrogatories, and form interrogatories); sitting for a full day deposition (each); communicating with
`
`counsel regarding the case status; and acting consistent with the interests of the proposed class. I am
`
`unaware of any conflicts between Plaintiffs’ interests and those of the proposed class.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M. PERSINGER
`CASE NO. CGC-18-564120
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
`
`true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this 2nd day of March, 2021, at Los Angeles,
`
`California.
`
`/s/_____________
`Annick M. P ersinger
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANNICK M. PERSINGER
`CASE NO. CGC-18-564120
`
`5
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`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
`
`TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
`ANNICK M. PERSINGER (SBN 272996)
`apersinger@tzlegal.com
`10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
`Los Angeles, CA 90024
`Telephone:
`(510) 254-6808
`Facsimile:
`(202) 973-0950
`
`TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
`HASSAN A. ZAVAREEI (SBN 181547)
`hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`KATHERINE M. AIZPURU (pro hac vice)
`kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
`1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone:
`(202) 973-0900
`Facsimile:
`(202) 973-0950
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`SUSAN WANG and RENE’ LEE
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`SUSAN WANG and RENE’ LEE,
`On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. CGC18564120
`
`
`
`v.
`
`STUBHUB, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`EXPERT REP ORT OF JOEL H.
`STECKEL, PH.D.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
`Date: June 1, 2021
`Time: 10:3 0 a.m.
`Department: 613
`
`Action filed: February 5, 2018
`Trial date: February 28, 2022
`
`REDACTED
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Background ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Assignment .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`STUBHUB’S FIELD EXPERIMENTS.............................................................................................. 6
`
`ANALYSIS OF PRIOR LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`How Consumers Process Partitioned Prices .......................................................... 12
`
`The Impact of Partitioned Prices on Consumer Decision
`Processes ...................................................................................................................... 15
`Consumer Welfare and Firm Profits ....................................................................... 20
`
`V.
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I am a Professor of Marketing and the Vice Dean for Doctoral Education at the Leonard
`
`Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`N. Stern School of Business, New York University, where I have taught since January 1989. I was the
`
`Chairperson of the Marketing Department for six years, from July 1998 to June 2004. I served as the
`
`Acting Chairperson of the School’s Accounting Department from August 2016 to August 2019. Prior to
`
`my promotion to Vice Dean, I was the faculty director of the Stern School Doctoral Program for five
`
`years, from May 2007 to July 2012. I have also held either permanent or visiting faculty appointments at
`
`the Graduate School of Business, Columbia University; the Anderson Graduate School of Management,
`
`U.C.L.A.; the School of Management, Yale University; and the Wharton School, University of
`
`Pennsylvania. I received my B.A. summa cum laude from Columbia University in 1977, and M.B.A., M.A.,
`
`and Ph.D. degrees from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in 1979, 1980, and 1982,
`
`respectively. I was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Columbia University and Beta Gamma Sigma at the Wharton
`
`School. These are the honor societies for the respective disciplines I studied at these institutions.
`2.
`
`I was the Founding President of the INFORMS (Institute for Operations Research and
`
`Management Science) Society on Marketing Science, the foremost professional group for the
`
`development and application of management science theory and tools in marketing. In addition, I am a
`
`member of the American Marketing Association, the American Statistical Association, the Association
`
`for Consumer Research, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Public
`
`Opinion Research, and the Society for Consumer Psychology.
`3.
`
`My fields of specialization within marketing include marketing and branding strategies,
`
`marketing research methodology, electronic commerce, and managerial decision-making. I am an author
`
`of four books and over 50 articles. In the course of my scholarly research, teaching, and consulting work,
`
`I have studied issues of marketing decisions, branding, and their roles in consumer choice and marketing
`
`strategy.
`4.
`
`I have sat on the editorial boards of major journals over the years. From July 2010 to
`
`March 2017, I served as a co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Marketing Letters. In that capacity I evaluated
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`1
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`over 200 research studies each year, for six and a half years. I served as a gatekeeper, determining which
`
`articles were published by the Journal. As such, my evaluations of the scientific reliability and validity of
`
`each study were subject to the scrutiny of the academic community. The academic community considers
`
`any study that does not conform to the scientific standards of my profession that appeared in the Journal
`
`as a black mark on my record. I consider the fact that the Journal’s publisher, the international firm,
`
`Springer-Verlag, kept me on long past the expiration of my term (July 2014) as validation of my
`
`performance in evaluating research. My professional qualifications are described further in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached as Appendix A.
`5.
`
`I have served as an expert witness on marketing strategy, marketing strategy, marketing
`
`research, trademark, and consumer decision-making in a variety of litigation matters. In the past four
`
`years, I testified as an expert witness in the matters listed in Appendix B.
`6.
`
`I have been retained by Tycko & Zavareei LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs in Susan Wang, Rene’
`
`Lee, and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) v. Stubhub, Inc. (“Defendant”), case number CGC-18564120
`
`in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to assist the court in
`
`understanding the relevant consumer behavior in the matter.
`7.
`
`My rate of compensation for this assignment is $1,000 per hour. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon the substance of my opinions or the outcome of this case.
`2.
`According to the complaint in this matter, StubHub is one of the many online ticket
`
`8.
`exchange websites that offer consumers the ability to search for and purchase tickets for sports, concerts,
`
`Background
`
`theater, and other live entertainment events happening across the country.1
`9.
`divided into two or more mandatory parts and presented to consumers, either sequentially or
`
`Marketing academics refer to the type of pricing scheme where consumer costs are
`
`simultaneously, as a base price and a mandatory surcharge or supplement, as partitioned pricing.2
`
`StubHub’s pricing scheme falls into this category. Consumers see only an element of the total cost
`
`1 Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Superior Court
`of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120. (“Complaint”), ¶13-4, p. 4.
`2 Greenleaf, Eric A., Eric J. Johnson, Vicki G. Morwitz, and Edith Shalev (2016), “The Price Does Not Include Additional
`Taxes, Fees, and Surcharges: A Review of Research on Partitioned Pricing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.
`105-24.
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`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
`
`
`
`upfront, the base price. Compulsory price increments are revealed as consumers travel through the
`
`buying process (e.g. airline taxes, shipping and handling charges, processing fees, etc.). The total cost to
`
`the consumer is only revealed later on in the process.
`10.
`Price Display Optimization (“PDO”).3 It begins with consumers seeking tickets to a specific event.4
`
`I understand that StubHub refers to their approach of presenting prices to consumers as
`
`Consumers go to the StubHub website. Once there they encounter an “event page” where the default
`
`purchase flow shows a list of prices that do not include fees.5
`11. Once a consumer selects a seat, that seat is highlighted along with the same initial ticket
`price.6 After the consumer selects a ticket on the event page, she would then click to the “build your
`
`order page” or “BYO” page that provides order details that show, inter alia, the selected seats.7 Like the
`
`event page, the default BYO page shows ticket prices that did not include fees.8
`12.
`13.
`however. Instead, after a consumer selects a ticket on the event page, and then clicks “go to check out”
`
`Clicking the “go to check out” button does not take consumers directly to check out,
`
`The purchaser is then prompted to “Go to checkout”.9
`
`on the BYO page, she receives an intervening prompt to sign-in, sign-up, or provide information to
`
`check out as a guest.10 If the purchaser has a StubHub account, she can login. If not, she must create one
`
`or check out as a guest. In all cases, StubHub’s purchase process requires consumers to provide personally
`
`identifying information before they arrive at the final check out page.11 Purchasers may enter credit card
`
`information or select one that is already linked to the account, it the customer has one.12
`
`
`3 Deposition of Joseph Piacenti, Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Superior Court of the
`State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120, September 4, 2020 (“Piacenti Deposition”),
`57:18-58:4.
`4 The process described here applies to consumers that either do not have a StubHub account or have one but are not
`logged in.
`5 Deposition of Garrett Reeb, Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Superior Court of the State
`of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120, February 9, 2021 (“Reeb Deposition”), Ex. 68,
`Reeb Deposition, 26:7-12; 28:3-7; 41:14-20.
`6 Complaint, ¶26, p. 7.
`7 Exh. 70; Reeb Deposition, 30:2—31:13; 41:16-42:9.
`8 Reeb Deposition, 31:18-23.
`
`9 Reeb Deposition, 31:24-32:2.
`10 Exhs. 71, 72; Reeb Deposition, 33:14-34:20, 35:17-37:5.
`11 Id.; See also Reeb Deposition 42:11-16.
`12 Complaint, ¶27, p. 7.
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`3
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`14.
`be paid is revealed. That amount exceeds the initial prices of the tickets. For example, in the example
`
`The purchaser is then directed to the final checkout page, on which the total amount to
`
`presented in the complaint, the final amount owed for two $131.00 tickets is $319.40, an amount 22
`
`percent higher than the ticket prices initially presented ($262.00 = 2 X $131.00).13
`15.
`on or about September 1, 2015, StubHub used an approach referred to as “all-in-pricing.”14 All-in-pricing
`
`Prior to the adoption of its sequentially partitioned PDO presentation format for prices
`
`differs from PDO in that when consumers view the available ticket offerings for an event, all fees are
`
`presented from the get-go. In other words, consumers see the prices “all in” right from the beginning on
`
`the event page.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16. While the (prospective) purchaser under sequentially partitioned PDO pricing certainly
`has the ability to abort the transaction if she does not like the final cost, one cannot dispute the fact that
`
`the consumer has already taken several steps to commit to the transaction. She has searched for tickets,
`
`selected seats, created or logged into an account, exhibited an intent to buy, and, in some cases, entered
`
`their credit card information.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13 Complaint, ¶28, pp. 7-8. Explanations for the difference between the initial prices and the final cost are not shown
`explicitly on the final checkout page. In order to see the explanation of fees, customers are required to take the additional
`step of identifying and clicking the “Pricing details” link or “i” symbol” on the final checkout page (Complaint, ¶28-9, pp. 7-
`9). The explanations are given in the form of “Total fees” with a footnote saying “includes all service and delivery fees.”
`The StubHub website does not detail specifically what these fees are (Complaint, ¶29-30, pp. 9-10).
`14 Reeb Deposition, 29:3-7.
`15 Piacenti deposition, 60:17-61:17, 82:13-8.
`16 Deposition of Adam Wandy, Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Superior Court of the
`State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120, October 27, 2020 (“Wandy Deposition”),
`132:17-133:1.
`17 Piacenti deposition, 62:3-15, 63:11-64:21, 67:7-14, 124:18-125:6.
`18 Deposition of Wendy Collins, Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Superior Court of the
`State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120, September 18, 2020 (“Collins Deposition”),
`103:4-14.
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`4
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Assignment
`
`17.
`consideration on the consumer behavior implications of StubHub’s price presentation practices. I have
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs to provide expert opinion for the court’s
`
`been asked to opine generally about the implications from academic marketing research as to the likely
`
`reactions of consumers to StubHub’s presentation practices.
`18.
`the components of the initial base price StubHub uses, how StubHub’s partitioning likely impacts the
`
`Specifically, I was asked to examine how consumers are likely to react to and interpret
`
`consumer decision processes of its customers, and what effect the practice likely has on StubHub’s and
`
`their customers’ respective welfares.
`19.
`advertising.19 My task in this report does not focus on these characterizations directly. Instead, I focus
`
`Plaintiffs characterize StubHub’s pricing format as “bait and switch” or “deceptive”
`
`on the likely cognitive and behavioral reactions of consumers to pricing formats like StubHub’s. I rely
`
`on past and current scientific academic literature, as well as my own educational background and
`
`experience, to outline the effects of StubHub’s practices on consumers’ state of mind and behavior.
`20.
`
`I have already submitted an expert report in this matter. The report was dated August 14,
`
`2019 and corrected September 23, 2019. The instant report reflects an update to that earlier report. This
`
`update incorporates additional deposition testimony and literature that has emerged in the intervening
`
`period. The sources I have considered in preparing my opinions in this matter are enumerated in the
`footnotes to this report and in Appendix C.
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`21. My review of the literature and deposition testimony has led me to the following
`conclusions with respect to StubHub’s process of revealing prices to its customers.
`(cid:120)
`
`As the only piece of cost information available throughout a transaction,
`
`consumers anchor on the initial base price and give it more weight in their evaluation of
`
`an offer than appropriate.
`
`
`19 Complaint, ¶32-33, pp. 10-11. Although the initial base price has been referred to in the literature as the “bait price” (cf.
`Rasch, Alexander, Miriam Thone, and Tobias Wenzel (2018), “Drip Pricing and its Regulation: Experimental Evidence,
`DICE Discussion Paper, No. 297, ISBN 978-3-86304-296-7, Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics, Dusseldorf,
`p. 2.).
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`5
`
`

`

`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
`
`(cid:120)
`
`As such, it is the initial base price, and not the final total cost that triggers the
`
`
`
`consumer decision process and builds commitment to a purchase.
`(cid:120)
`
`StubHub’s sequential partitioned pricing
`
`likely causes consumers
`
`to
`
`underestimate their total cost and overestimate their perceived value for an offering.
`(cid:120)
`
`StubHub’s sequential partitioned pricing likely curtails consumer search; i.e.
`
`consumers are less likely to investigate alternative suppliers than they would under all-in
`
`pricing.
`(cid:120)
`
`StubHub’s sequential partitioned pricing induces an escalation of commitment.
`
`As consumers go through the buying process, they become more committed to
`
`completing the eventual purchase.
`(cid:120)
`
`Relative to complete all-in-pricing, StubHub’s sequential partitioned pricing or
`
`PDO approach enhances their sales and profits at the expense of consumer welfare.
`
`III.
`
`STUBHUB’S FIELD EXPERIMENTS
`22.
`was all conducted in different contexts than the StubHub pricing presentations.20 Therefore my
`
`In the original version of this report, I offered the caveat that the research I referred to
`
`conclusions were largely stated using the word “likely”. I asserted that for my conclusions to be
`
`conclusive, the research would have to be conducted in the StubHub context. However, at my deposition,
`
`I opined that StubHub had likely already conducted such research and not made it available to Plaintiffs.
`
`To be specific, I was asked by Mr. Joseph O’Connor, “But you would have liked to seen StubHub’s
`
`studies if there were any?”. I responded, “I am sure there were some. I can’t imagine StubHub wouldn’t
`
`have conducted studies related to this” (i.e. the effect of their sequential partitioned pricing relative to
`
`all-in-pricing).21
`23.
`O’Connor and I were discussing. As of that point in time, September 2019, they had not been disclosed
`
`As it turns out, I was right. StubHub had conducted studies of exactly the type Mr.
`
`
`20 Corrected Expert Report of Joel H. Steckel, PH.D., Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc.,
`Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120, September 23, 2019,
`¶21, p. 5.
`21 Deposition of Joel Howard Steckel, Ph.D., Susan Wang, Rene’ Lee, and all others similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Superior
`Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No: CGC-18564120, September 12, 2019, 100:25-
`101:5.
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JOEL H. STECKEL, PH.D.
`CASE NO. CGC18564120
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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 Plaintiff’s counsel. Not only have these studies now been disclosed to Plaintiff’s counsel, they have
`
`been disclosed to me independently of counsel, as well as to the entire world.
`24.
`authored by Tom Blake of eBay Research, Sarah Moshary of the Booth School of Business at the
`
`These studies are described in a paper entitled “Price Salience and Product Choice,”
`
`University of Chicago, Kane Sweeney of Uber, and Steve Tadelis of the University of California at
`
`Berkeley.22 The paper has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal Marketing Science.
`
`Marketing Science is the premier quantitative journal in marketing. It is on the top journal lists of the
`
`Financial Times and Business Week. Marketing Science is the first-choice publication outlet for authors of
`
`quantitative, technical papers in marketing. I spent a few years on its Editorial Board and have been
`
`fortunate enough to publish a handful of papers in Marketing Science. “Price Salience and Product Choice”
`
`was accepted for publication in June 2020, nine months after my deposition.23
`25. Much of my deposition was spent discussing differences between StubHub’s sequential
`price partitioning and the experimental contexts used in the studies I cited and whether or not those
`
`differences could mitigate the applicability of those prior studies to StubHub’s price presentations. The
`
`public availability of “Price Salience and Product Choice” has made that dialogue moot. The studies in
`
`the paper are field experiments. Field experiments are research studies conducted in real situations in
`
`which one or more independent variables are manipulated by the experimenter under conditions as
`
`carefully controlled as the situation will permit.24 Field experiments have the dual advantages of study
`
`control and generalizability. Control is supplied by experimenter manipulation; generalizability is
`
`provided by the fact that the context is real. In this instance, the studies involve StubHub customers
`
`spending their own money on products they really want in the real StubHub pricing environment, be it
`
`sequential partitioning or all-in pricing. In field experiments, subjects do not even know they are
`
`The implication of the studies described in the paper by Blake and colleagues is that they
`
`participating in a study. They are simply shopping on StubHub.
`26.
`allow me to remove the word “likely” from most of my opinions in the previous version of this report.
`
`22 Blake, Tom, Sarah Moshary, Kane Sweeney, and Steve Tadelis (2020), “Price Salience and Product Choice,” Marketing
`Science, For