{"id":2076,"date":"2024-07-31T16:21:16","date_gmt":"2024-07-31T16:21:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/stubhub-faces-lawsuit-over-service-fees-tacked-on-to-ticket-prices\/"},"modified":"2024-07-31T16:21:16","modified_gmt":"2024-07-31T16:21:16","slug":"stubhub-faces-lawsuit-over-service-fees-tacked-on-to-ticket-prices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/stubhub-faces-lawsuit-over-service-fees-tacked-on-to-ticket-prices\/","title":{"rendered":"StubHub Faces Lawsuit Over Service Fees Tacked On to Ticket Prices"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tStubHub is facing a lawsuit from Washington DC\u2019s attorney general over allegations that the ticket resale platform foists \u201cconvoluted junk fees\u201d on concertgoers after luring them in with \u201cdeceptively low prices.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a complaint filed Wednesday, Attorney General Brian Schwalb<\/strong> accuses StubHub of violating the District\u2019s consumer protection laws by using the \u201cdrip pricing\u201d \u2014 an \u201cexploitative pricing scheme\u201d in which a company requires consumers to pay fees that weren\u2019t advertised in the initial price.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cFor years, StubHub has illegally deceived District consumers through its convoluted junk fee scheme,\u201d Schwalb said in a statement announcing the case. \u201cStubHub lures consumers in by advertising a deceptively low price, forces them through a burdensome purchase process, and then finally reveals a total on the checkout page that is vastly higher than the originally advertised ticket price.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe \u201chidden\u201d fees imposed by StubHub total \u201cupwards of 40% of the advertised ticket price,\u201d the lawsuit claims, and DC consumers have allegedly paid $118 million in such fees since 2015.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a statement, StubHub said the company was \u201ccommitted to creating a transparent, secure and competitive marketplace\u201d for its customers. \u201cWe are disappointed that the DC Attorney General is targeting StubHub when our user experience is consistent with the law, our competitors\u2019 practices and the broader e-commerce sector. We strongly support federal and state solutions that enhance existing laws to empower consumers, such as requiring all-in pricing uniformly across platforms.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tConsumers have complained for years about \u201cconvenience\u201d and \u201cservice\u201d fees that are tacked onto the price of tickets for concerts and other live events. Laws requiring \u201call-in pricing\u201d \u2014 the full, final cost, presented at the beginning of a sale \u2014 have been enacted by New York, California and other states in recent years. A federal bill (Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing, or TICKET, Act) was passed by the House of Representatives in May and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.<\/p>\n

\n\tHidden fees are also a key accusation in the pending antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation filed by the Department of Justice earlier this year. In that case, the DOJ has argued that such fees levied by Ticketmaster on American concertgoers \u201cfar exceed\u201d those in other countries.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAny fan who has logged onto Ticketmaster\u2019s website to buy a concert ticket knows the feeling of shock and frustration as the base cost of the ticket increases dramatically with the addition of fees,\u201d the DOJ wrote in its complaint against Live Nation. \u201cWhatever the name of the fee and however the fees are packaged and collected,\u00a0they are essentially a \u2018Ticketmaster Tax\u2019 that ultimately raise the price fans pay.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn Wednesday\u2019s lawsuit, Schwalb argues that StubHub imposes those same fees on its customers. Calling it a \u201ca classic bait-and-switch scheme,\u201d the lawsuit claims the final price of a StubHub ticket is only revealed after customers have \u201cinvested time and effort clicking through an intentionally long, multi-page purchase process\u201d \u2014 which features a countdown clock to \u201ccreate a false sense of urgency.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cStubHub designed this unfair and deceptive scheme to make more money,\u201d Schwalb wrote. \u201cBy forcing consumers to click through over a dozen pages before they see the real price, StubHub puts consumers in the position of having to choose between either paying those unexpected fees or abandoning the time and effort they have expended.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn addition to springing such fees at the end of a transaction, the lawsuit also accuses StubHub of choosing deceptive names for them \u2014 a claim that echoes longstanding complaints about what vaguely-named ticketing fees imposed by many companies actually cover.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWhat StubHub identifies as \u2018Fulfillment and Service Fees\u2019 are in fact influenced by factors unrelated to \u2018fulfillment\u2019 or \u2018service,\u2019\u201d the lawsuit reads. \u201cFurthermore, the fees vary wildly, and StubHub never discloses to the consumer how those fees are calculated or what services these fees fund.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRead the entire lawsuit against StubHub here:<\/strong><\/p>\n