Ticketmaster’s attempt to game arbitration services fails
A U.S. court has rejected Ticketmaster’s attempt to strengthen its mandatory arbitration terms, including retroactive changes and claims that simply browsing its site binds users to its rules, prompting broader criticism of how corporations use arbitration to avoid public courts and class actions. Commenters argue that such one-sided, non‑negotiable contracts would be invalid in many jurisdictions and call for penalties when companies knowingly insert unenforceable or unconscionable clauses. The exchange widens into a critique of weak antitrust enforcement, the evolution of U.S. arbitration law, and the practical impossibility of opting out of arbitration for everyday services.
Ticketmaster’s Terms and Contract Validity
- Many see “we can change terms without notice and retroactively” as meaning there is no real contract at all.
- Courts in the case reportedly labeled such terms “unconscionable,” aligning with that intuition.
- Some want systemic punishment: unwind affected contracts, issue mass refunds, or at least penalize knowingly including unenforceable clauses.
- Others note severability lets big companies stuff in invalid terms with little downside.
Forced Arbitration and Consumer Rights
- Widespread view: arbitration clauses are used to bully consumers, block class actions, and hide systemic misconduct behind NDAs and private processes.
- One commenter recounts a highly unfair arbitration where the other side lied, provided no evidence, and still won, with no chance for rebuttal.
- Some insist they will not agree to arbitration; others point out almost every modern service (including “free” ones) now requires it.
Arbitrator Selection and Structural Bias
- Core complaint: companies effectively choose the arbitrator or arbitration provider, undermining neutrality.
- Suggestions:
- Mutual or random selection of arbitrators, or government assignment (similar to judges or juries).
- Banning company-picked providers for consumer contracts.
- Concern that arbitrators, whose business depends on repeat corporate clients, have incentives to favor them.
Legal Background: FAA, Courts, and Congress
- Debate over whether Congress or the Supreme Court is primarily responsible for expanding arbitration into consumer and employment contexts.
- Some argue the original Federal Arbitration Act was meant for commercial disputes between merchants, not consumers or workers, and that later court decisions misapplied it.
- Others note Congress could clarify or reverse these interpretations but has failed due to gridlock.
Access to Justice, Costs, and Small Claims
- Arbitration is defended by some as cheaper than litigation, potentially easing overloaded courts.
- Critics reply that:
- Discovery is weaker or discretionary.
- Corporate lawyers dominate the process.
- Upfront arbitration fees can make small claims practically impossible.
- Small claims courts are cited as a fairer, low-cost venue, but often contractually waived.
Antitrust and Ticketmaster’s Market Power
- Ticketmaster is seen as a de facto monopoly: for many events there is no realistic alternative, undermining the “just don’t use it” argument.
- Some mention lack of box-office options and venue ownership as reinforcing this power.
- Several commenters see Ticketmaster’s behavior as emblematic of broader antitrust failure.
Reform Ideas and Workarounds
- Proposed reforms include:
- Outlaw or tightly regulate forced arbitration in consumer and employment contracts.
- Require neutral provider selection, guaranteed discovery, capped consumer fees, and access to small claims.
- Limit or reinterpret “contracts of adhesion” where consumers have no real bargaining power.
- A few joke about “counter-EULAs” (e.g., custom email addresses or local licenses) but acknowledge these likely have no legal effect.