Patriots vs StubHub.com (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...Patriots%20news

BOSTON --A month after the New England Patriots sued a ticket reseller, claiming it encourages fans to break a state anti-scalping law, the company has answered with its own lawsuit.

The counterclaim, filed in Suffolk Superior Court Wednesday by StubHub Inc., accuses the Patriots of attempted monopolization, conspiracy to restrain trade and unfair trade practices.

"The Patriots' claims are misguided and their actions are intended to serve the Patriots at the expense of their fans. StubHub will continue to protect the fans' rights by providing choice, access and safety and we believe we will ultimately prevail in these proceedings," StubHub CEO Jeff Fluhr said in a statement.

In late November, the Patriots sued the company, as well as two named people and 50 unnamed season ticket holders who allegedly resold their tickets on StubHub illegally.

A rarely enforced scalping law in Massachusetts limits ticket reselling businesses to markups of $2 above face value, plus various service charges.

The Patriots were seeking three times the revenue brought in by StubHub and the other defendants and an injunction against further reselling of Patriots tickets on the StubHub Web site.

San Francisco-based StubHub claims the Patriots attempted to obtain a monopoly on the ticket resale market by illegally fixing ticket prices, misleading ticket holders into thinking they cannot resell their tickets and illegally revoking tickets of customers who try.

StubHub wants the initial complaint dismissed, the Patriots to stop "predatory conduct" and "unfair and deceptive acts" and unspecified damages and attorney's fees, according to the lawsuit.

Daniel Goldberg, an attorney representing the Patriots, called StubHub's countersuit "ridiculous." He told The Boston Globe the whole point of an antiscalping law is to rein in ticket markups, while a monopoly would raise prices.

 

[Workhorse]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit.

Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

 

[QUEZILLA]

They just legalized scalping in FL. I think it became too dificult to control. NE is wasting their time, money, and effort IMO. If they win, another company is going to spring up, like napster.

 

[Slider]

Yeah, the Patsies are right in principle but it's so far past right now.

 

[Please See Mine]

I don't understand the purpose of the scalping laws. If I legally came into possession of any good, why shouldn't I be able to re-sell it however I please?

 

[redman]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit. Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

I'm no anti-trust lawyer, however neither the Rolling Stones nor the Patriots necessarily need to have a monopoly on Ticket sales. This isn't about who gets to produce a product, but rather who gets to sell it to the consumer.

 

[Foosball God]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit. Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

I'm no anti-trust lawyer, however neither the Rolling Stones nor the Patriots necessarily need to have a monopoly on Ticket sales. This isn't about who gets to produce a product, but rather who gets to sell it to the consumer.

It's not even about the sale of the product. It's about the resale. Anti-scalping laws were implimented so that the casual fan wouldn't get screwed by ticket brokers scooping up all the tickets and inflating the prices, making more of a profit than the team/performer/etc.

 

[redman]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit. Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

I'm no anti-trust lawyer, however neither the Rolling Stones nor the Patriots necessarily need to have a monopoly on Ticket sales. This isn't about who gets to produce a product, but rather who gets to sell it to the consumer.

It's not even about the sale of the product. It's about the resale. Anti-scalping laws were implimented so that the casual fan wouldn't get screwed by ticket brokers scooping up all the tickets and inflating the prices, making more of a profit than the team/performer/etc.

What exactly was StubHub doing that was so bad? Violating this byzantine $2 mark-up rule? Were there empty seats in Gillette Stadium as a result? That's the funny thing - unless you have a stupid scalper or ticket broker, all of the tickets will get sold anyway. Where are the damages? The Pats got their money, the fans paid the money they where willing to pay in an arms length transaction, and the seats got filled. If the Pats don't like someone arbitraging their tickets (which is all scalping is), then increase the ticket prices to cut into their margin. Pretty simple, and I'm sure a sharp guy like Robert Kraft can figure that out. This is about money and control. Nothing more.

 

[Workhorse]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit. Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

I'm no anti-trust lawyer, however neither the Rolling Stones nor the Patriots necessarily need to have a monopoly on Ticket sales. This isn't about who gets to produce a product, but rather who gets to sell it to the consumer.

Think of it in terms of the rental property market - If you rent a room from me on the condition that you do not sublet, that's a binding contract. Similarly, if you buy a ticket to a sporting event on the condition that you do not resell that ticket, it's also a binding contract. In both cases, you don't really "own" anything. Your ticket (or your lease) has very specific conditions on the terms of the agreement. If the owners of the property (in this case, the New England Patriots) decide that they can dictate the terms of ticket resale, then that's their decision, IMO.

 

[softball]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit. Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

I'm no anti-trust lawyer, however neither the Rolling Stones nor the Patriots necessarily need to have a monopoly on Ticket sales. This isn't about who gets to produce a product, but rather who gets to sell it to the consumer.

Think of it in terms of the rental property market - If you rent a room from me on the condition that you do not sublet, that's a binding contract. Similarly, if you buy a ticket to a sporting event on the condition that you do not resell that ticket, it's also a binding contract. In both cases, you don't really "own" anything. Your ticket (or your lease) has very specific conditions on the terms of the agreement. If the owners of the property (in this case, the New England Patriots) decide that they can dictate the terms of ticket resale, then that's their decision, IMO.

Scalping laws were NOT implemented to make sure the reseller doesn't make more than the team/entertainer.They were started to combat ticket fraud. Ie: Reproductions/counterfiet.The problem with limiting a place like a Stub Hub is IF they are working within the framework of laws OR came into possession of tickets by legal means. Then they have nothing to worry about.The Patriots and any team can tell you not to reselll your ticket. But the cannot enforce it.This is a free market system economy, and they are not able to overide someones right to resell their ticket and make a profit. They will lose IMHO.The only case I can recall of a season ticket holder losing their tickets was at the Giants Snowball game, but that was due to the season ticket holder reselling the tickets to peope who committed a criminal act. Throwing snowballs onto the field.

 

[Knightro]

They just legalized scalping in FL. I think it became too dificult to control. NE is wasting their time, money, and effort IMO. If they win, another company is going to spring up, like napster.

Yep - nice year for me too. I was in the final installment of my Jags season tix...so my bill this year was a measely $280. I made that back by selling just 2 of the games on StubHub.terrific service

 

[azgroover]

They just legalized scalping in FL. I think it became too dificult to control. NE is wasting their time, money, and effort IMO. If they win, another company is going to spring up, like napster.

Yep - nice year for me too. I was in the final installment of my Jags season tix...so my bill this year was a measely $280. I made that back by selling just 2 of the games on StubHub.terrific service

By scalping 4 of my Cardinals season tickets this year, my season tickets were essentially free and I made about $50. Not sure if this will work next year though since the novelty of the new stadium will be gone.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Busy time for Patriot legal guys. Tom Brady suing yahoo. Now the team is after stubhub.

J

 

[This_Guy]

Stubhub doesn't have a prayer of winning their countersuit. Of course the Patriots have a "monopoly" on the "ticket resale market" -- It's THEIR PRODUCT. That's like saying that The Rolling Stones have a monopoly on the rights to their music and likeness.

I'm no anti-trust lawyer, however neither the Rolling Stones nor the Patriots necessarily need to have a monopoly on Ticket sales. This isn't about who gets to produce a product, but rather who gets to sell it to the consumer.

It's not even about the sale of the product. It's about the resale. Anti-scalping laws were implimented so that the casual fan wouldn't get screwed by ticket brokers scooping up all the tickets and inflating the prices, making more of a profit than the team/performer/etc.

What exactly was StubHub doing that was so bad? Violating this byzantine $2 mark-up rule? Were there empty seats in Gillette Stadium as a result? That's the funny thing - unless you have a stupid scalper or ticket broker, all of the tickets will get sold anyway. Where are the damages? The Pats got their money, the fans paid the money they where willing to pay in an arms length transaction, and the seats got filled. If the Pats don't like someone arbitraging their tickets (which is all scalping is), then increase the ticket prices to cut into their margin. Pretty simple, and I'm sure a sharp guy like Robert Kraft can figure that out. This is about money and control. Nothing more.

Very Original ticket sellers (the Patriots in this case) make their argument based on doing the right thing for the fans. This is a PR move and not the actual motive. They can rally a lot of support by pulling the "inflated prices" card but as redman said "This is about money and control."