StubHub Wins Arbitration Ruling in CEO Ticket Fund Class Action

StubHub has won a ruling forcing a proposed class action over CEO Eric Baker’s ties to professional ticket reseller Andro Capital into individual arbitration, preventing the plaintiff from pursuing the case as a class action in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted StubHub and Baker’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the lawsuit brought by customer Louis Sanquini while those proceedings move forward. In a Sept. 21 opinion explaining an earlier order, Rakoff found that Sanquini agreed to StubHub’s arbitration terms when he completed ticket purchases through the platform.

The ruling is a procedural victory for StubHub, but it does not resolve the underlying allegations involving Baker and Andro. Rakoff did not rule on Sanquini’s fraud, unjust enrichment or consumer-protection claims, and StubHub’s alternative request to dismiss the lawsuit was denied without prejudice as moot after the court sent the dispute to arbitration.

Sanquini sued StubHub and Baker in July, alleging consumers were not adequately informed that Baker has an ownership and management interest in Andro Capital, a professional ticket-resale operation that has sold inventory through StubHub since 2008.

The complaint alleges Sanquini would not have purchased tickets through StubHub — or would have paid less — if he had understood the relationship. His purchases included tickets to a KISS concert at Madison Square Garden in 2023 and a New York Red Bulls-New York City FC match in 2024.

StubHub’s relationship with Andro was disclosed in securities filings connected to the company’s public offering. StubHub has previously pointed to those filings in responding to questions about Baker’s ties to the fund and described Andro as one of many professional sellers operating on its marketplace.

‘Buy Now’ Click Bound Customer to Arbitration

The immediate question before Rakoff was not whether StubHub misled customers, but whether Sanquini could pursue those allegations in court.

StubHub’s checkout page stated immediately above its “Buy Now” button that completing a purchase meant accepting the platform’s terms and conditions. Those terms included an arbitration provision requiring most disputes to be pursued individually rather than through a class or representative action unless the customer opted out.

Rakoff found that the notice was sufficiently conspicuous and that Sanquini “unambiguously manifested his assent” by clicking the purchase button. Sanquini did not deny clicking the button or claim he used the agreement’s 30-day procedure for opting out of arbitration.

The judge also rejected Sanquini’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable under California law, citing both the opt-out provision and how the arbitration terms were presented to customers.

Baker was also permitted to invoke the arbitration agreement despite not personally being a party to Sanquini’s customer contract. Rakoff concluded that the claims against Baker and StubHub were sufficiently intertwined, noting that Sanquini’s four causes of action were asserted against the defendants together.

Plaintiff Lawyers Consider Individual Claims

The arbitration victory may not end the broader dispute.

Keven Steinberg, lead counsel for Sanquini, told Law Commentary that attorneys are considering bringing similar claims individually on behalf of additional StubHub customers — potentially creating what is commonly known as mass arbitration, where numerous consumers separately pursue substantially similar claims.

“StubHub got exactly what it asked for. It may come to regret it,” Steinberg said.

For now, however, there is no evidence in the federal court record that thousands of arbitration demands have actually been filed, and Rakoff made no determination about how many other StubHub customers could have viable claims. Each potential claimant would still have to pursue an individual dispute under the terms governing that customer’s transactions.

The Andro relationship has separately attracted congressional scrutiny. Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, sought information from StubHub this summer about its relationships with Andro and affiliated financing company Colloquy Capital. The request did not allege that StubHub or Baker violated the law.

Sanquini’s federal case, Sanquini v. StubHub, Inc., remains stayed in the Southern District of New York while his individual claims proceed through arbitration.