Photo Credit: Claudio Schwarz
One week ago, a federal court granted StubHub’s motion to compel arbitration in a proposed class action centering on CEO Eric Baker’s alleged ticket-broker ties. Now, the presiding judge has explained the ruling in a 21-page opinion.
Said opinion hit the docket yesterday, after Judge Jed Rakoff ordered the straightforward suit to arbitration on the 14th. Though this concise order was clear enough, it didn’t identify the precise reasons behind the decision, instead noting that an explanation would arrive “in due course.”
Enter the newly penned opinion, which reinforces the existing conclusion that the plaintiff received “reasonably conspicuous notice of the arbitration agreement” via a user-terms hyperlink situated above the “Buy Now” button on StubHub’s site and app.
As for the plaintiff’s arguments that he didn’t, in fact, agree to the terms or to arbitrate disputes, the individual “unambiguously manifested his assent by clicking the ‘Buy Now’ button to complete his transactions,” according to the court.
Another of the filing party’s claims, “that the provision permitting StubHub to amend the arbitration agreement renders the agreement unconscionable” under California law, didn’t fare much better.
In a nutshell, with StubHub providing at least 30 days’ notice before arbitration-agreement changes go into effect, and with customers having the option to opt out if they don’t accept the updated fine print, everything is above board here, per Judge Rakoff.
What of the idea that the arbitration clause applies to StubHub itself but not the company’s aforementioned CEO?
Well, between the parties’ “close ‘corporate relationship’” and the fact that the “four causes of action are asserted without differentiating between Baker and StubHub,” the clause also applies to the exec, the legal text explains.
Though a nationwide class action is off the table here, the legal battle could well involve extensive arbitration proceedings when all is said and done. Meanwhile, nothing is stopping different parties from seeking relief from the platform.
In other StubHub litigation news, then, New Orleans venue The Howlin’ Wolf sued the business earlier in September for allegedly misleading customers with on-page claims about speculative passes’ purportedly limited availability – including for events that hadn’t yet sold a single primary ticket.
“As of September 7, 2026 at 8:15 a.m. CST, the venue’s all-in price on its website for the Hot 8 Brass Band’s September 16, 2026 show is $24.94 ($20.00 ticket plus $4.94 fees), and there were still 100 General Admission (GA) tickets available for sale,” a relevant section reads.
“Contemporaneously on StubHub, the ticket price for the same September 16, 2026 Hot 8 Brass Band show at The Howlin’ Wolf is $76, and the advertising on StubHub’s user interface (‘UI’) falsely advertises that the General Admission tickets are getting scarce (despite no tickets having been sold by that time),” the suit continues.
