Ticketmaster Mass Arbitration Procedure Unconscionable

               The Ninth Circuit holds that Ticketmaster’s mass arbitration provisions are unconscionable.  Hickman v Live Nation Entertainment, 120 F. 4th, 670 (Ninth Cir. 2024).

               Finding a close relationship between Ticketmaster and the newly established entity New Era ADR, the court noted novel and unusual mass arbitration procedures:

The terms of arbitration may be changed without notice and changes apply retroactively.

There is no guaranteed right for affected parties to participate in bell weather cases

There is no right to discovery

Complaints are limited to 10 total pages

The evidentiary record and initial briefing is limited to 10 documents (subject to limited exceptions)

Closing briefs are limited to 15,000 characters (about five pages)

Only the party against whom injunctive relief was awarded (customarily the Respondent – Ticketmaster) can appeal injunctive relief.

Each side (rather than each party) has the power to disqualify one arbitrator

Arbitration provider New Era has the power to override a  decision to disqualify an arbitrator      

               Because the arbitration terms were unconscionable, the court held the entire agreement was unenforceable.