Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Ticketmaster Sued Over Hidden Junk Fees

Consumers from several states in March sued Ticketmaster and its owner, Live Nation, for showing a lower price for event tickets upfront but hiding the true higher price of them until deep into the buying process. (See complaint.)

In its scheme, Ticketmaster uses a deceptively low upfront price to lure consumers into the purchase flow for tickets—the bait. Then, once Ticketmaster has lured Plaintiffs and consumers like them into the transaction with a deceptively low price, Ticketmaster adds exorbitant junk fees (in unpredictable amounts) after Plaintiffs and consumers had already relied on the low advertised price and made the decision to buy. In other words, only after a consumer has invested time choosing an event, selected their specific tickets, made the decision to purchase those tickets based on the low advertised price, and clicked through a multi-page purchase process, do Defendants reveal the hefty mandatory fees that will be added to the total ticket prices—the switch.

The lawsuit provided an example of a California consumer going through the purchase process of two tickets to see the Harlem Globetrotters.

The consumer searches Ticketmaster and finds that the cheapest seats are $32 each.
Ticketmaster $32 seats

He then goes through a process of picking the specific seats, and the site shows a subtotal, and only in tiny print does it say “+ fees.” However, if one clicked the fees link, it would not state the specific amount of those fees.

plus fees

*MOUSE PRINT:

The consumer is then asked to sign in and sees a countdown clock with only eight minutes on it during which time the transaction must be completed. Then a total screen comes up showing $112.06 for his two tickets. At least when MrConsumer went to school, $32 times two is $64.

Total ticket price

There is no mention of what the fees were for or the specific amounts unless you click the down arrow to the right of the total.

Fees explained

Now you finally see there are services charges, facility fees, order processing charges, and tax, which combined almost double the price of the tickets being purchased. All this time the countdown clock is running and many ticket buyers who have now invested substantial time and effort in the process may just pull the trigger.

In some states, ticket sellers have been required to show “all-in” pricing for years. But as of May 5, that is now the law of the land since the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule on hidden fees went into effect.

Ticketmaster is now complying nationwide as noted below, but they highlight a mandatory arbitration clause to prevent future lawsuits!

Ticketmaster all-in pricing and arbitration

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is the Pope Leo Trading Card Offer an Illegal Lottery?

Before the ink was even dry on the proclamation of the new pope, commercialization efforts began.

Right out of the gate, Topps, the trading card company, began offering Pope Leo XIV commemorative cards. They come in two versions: the standard card and a very limited edition one with white smoke in the background. That version will only have 267 printed, each one individually numbered, like works of art.

Pope Leo cards

Topps was taking orders on its website between May 8 and 11 only and charging $8.99 per card, with quantity discounts available. Within two weeks, the company promised to mail out the cards.

In addition, depending on how many cards Topps sells in total, the company will also print several dozen so-called “parallels” or “chase” cards — very fancy foil versions of various rarities and seed them randomly across all the orders. All purchasers will have a chance of getting one of these very rare cards instead of the standard “base” card.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Pope card  parallels

The question arises, however, does this promotion constitute an illegal lottery? Lotteries are defined by state law. “Paying a price for the chance of a prize” is the typical definition.

For example, if Quaker Oats was to advertise that they have hidden a diamond ring in one of every ten thousand boxes of their oatmeal, they would violate state gambling laws. But consumer products companies can legally comply with the law by transforming the promotion into a sweepstakes. To do that, they eliminate the “price” element by offering a no-purchase-necessary means of allowing anyone the chance to win. Typically that is accomplished by asking consumers to send in a three-by-five card with their name and address.

In this case, however, Topps does not offer the public a free chance of receiving one of the theoretically more valuable limited-edition cards.

We asked the company’s PR representative to comment on this issue, and checked with two legal experts who specialize in lottery law. We only heard back from one expert who has sued companies for conducting illegal lotteries. He said, in part…

…more research is needed but “the question now is what consideration are the purchasers of the ‘pope card’ giving for the chance to get [one of the special] cards. This whole scheme by Topps just doesn’t pass the smell test.” –Bill Pannell

There apparently is a history of mostly failed legal attempts to hold trading card companies liable for gambling (see page 406) when they sell card packets some of which randomly contain more valuable cards.

What do you think? Does Topps cross the line by enticing the purchase of these pope cards because there is a chance the buyer will luck out and get one of the rare and potentially more valuable ones?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Amazon Sued for Reneging on Some Instant Refunds

Rather than make customers wait until returned merchandise is actually received by them, Amazon has a policy of sometimes issuing instant refunds as soon as a shopper returns the product at a dropoff location like at Kohl’s, Staples, UPS, or Whole Foods.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Amazon advance returns

Of course, they reserve the right to reverse an instant refund that they issued if they never actually receive the returned items.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Amazon can recharge for returns not received

Back in 2023, Amazon was sued by a group of consumers from various states alleging that they properly brought goods to an authorized Amazon return location, got an instant refund, but then weeks and weeks later got emails claiming the goods had not actually been received by Amazon. As a result, their accounts were charged for the goods again.

In all these cases, when these consumers contacted customer service at Amazon, they acknowledged that their purchases had in fact been received, and were promised a credit and given an apology. None of them received a straight answer of how such mistakes can happen.

So Amazon is being sued in a class action for breach of contract, unfair or deceptive practices and unjust enrichment.

Just last week, a federal ruled against Amazon’s motion to dismiss, and said the case can proceed.

“Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Amazon stole money directly from their bank accounts and continues to possess it unlawfully,” said Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.