Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ticket holders of the Vancouver Whitecaps FC vs. Inter Miami CF match alleged inflated ticket prices tied to representations that Lionel Messi, Luis Suarez, and/or Sergio Busquets would play, but none attended.

• Claims were brought under multiple statutes including the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Sales of Goods Act, and for unjust enrichment and breach of contract.

• Defendants argued they had no control over Inter Miami CF's player lineup decisions and that their marketing was not false or misleading.

• Over 48,000 ticket holders still attended the match after the player absences were announced, and attendees had already been voluntarily provided compensation including free future game tickets and food discounts.

• Settlement of $475,000 was structured as a cy-pres donation to three sports-related organizations, with no direct payment to the approximately 50,657 class members, given that individual payouts would be negligible after administrative costs.

• Only 12 objections (0.0237% of class members) and 11 opt-outs (0.0217%) were received, and the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and within a zone of reasonableness.

The match that sparked a class action

On May 25, 2024, the Vancouver Whitecaps FC were scheduled to host Inter Miami CF in a Major League Soccer match. Tickets for this game were fixed with a face value that was much higher than tickets for other Vancouver Whitecaps games. The plaintiff, Ho Chun, alleged that this elevated pricing was coupled with representations to the effect that star players Lionel Messi, Luis Suarez, and/or Sergio Busquets would be playing at the match. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants — Vancouver Whitecaps FC LP, WFC Football GP Ltd., Whitecaps Football Club Ltd., and Major League Soccer L.L.C. — capitalized on the expectation that these players would be playing at the match and made representations to that effect, but these players ultimately did not attend nor play at the match.

Filing of the class action and the causes of action

On June 4, 2024, Ho Chun filed a class action on behalf of the ticket holders. The lawsuit alleged breaches of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2; the federal Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34; the Sales of Goods Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 410; unjust enrichment; and breach of contract. The defendants responded with a response to civil claim and certification materials that provided a rather detailed explanation of the marketing for the match and the pricing of tickets. The defendants asserted that it was the Inter Miami CF team that decided shortly before the match that Messi, Suarez, and Busquets would not travel to the match, and that the defendants had no control over the player lineup for the Inter Miami CF team and had no prior knowledge that these players would not play.

The path to settlement

After delivery and exchange of materials, the parties agreed to attend a one-day mediation before the Honourable Elliott Myers on August 19, 2025. Prior to that mediation, the parties had exchanged detailed mediation briefs in chief and in response. However, the parties were unable to settle the matter at the mediation. Shortly after, settlement discussions continued based on the framework that was discussed and largely agreed upon at the mediation. On October 16, 2025, an agreement in principle was reached and a term sheet was executed. The parties then jointly drafted a settlement agreement and notice to class members, and on November 28, 2025, the action was certified for settlement purposes only, and the notices to class members were approved.

Notification and class member response

On December 29, 2025, notices were issued to class members in the manner approved by the court and specified in the settlement agreement. Notification was made by direct email by the defendants to class members who had an email address on file, by a national news release, and by posting on class counsel's websites. Major news outlets also reported on the proposed settlement after the news release was issued. The defendants confirmed that 21,292 emails were sent to class members, and that there were 87 bounce backs. Out of the approximately 50,657 class members, 11 opted out and 12 filed objections.

Terms of the settlement and the cy-pres distribution

Under the settlement agreement, the Vancouver Whitecaps FC agreed to make revisions to its ticketing terms and conditions, including by updating the prominent Ticketmaster popup to add language that player lineups are subject to change, that depictions in marketing materials are for reference purposes only, and by moving the disclosure of the ticketing terms to a more prominent location. The defendants also agreed to pay a settlement amount of $475,000 to be donated cy-pres — after any court-approved deductions for counsel fees, disbursements, and an honorarium, which are to be paid from the settlement amount — in equal shares to three sports-related organizations: KidSport BC (the British Columbia Chapter of KidSport Canada), which provides grants to children from families facing financial barriers to help cover the cost of children's sport registration fees; Canada SCORES (Vancouver General Fund), which delivers free after-school athletic and educational programs in schools; and BGC South Coast BC (the Boys and Girls Club of the South Coast of British Columbia region), which provides free clubs for children that offer a range of activities, including sports. The settlement is without admission of liability, and the defendants would receive a full release of the claims that were raised or could have been raised in this proceeding. The release expressly excludes any personal injury claims in relation to the match.

Litigation risks that justified the settlement

The court accepted that the plaintiffs faced considerable uncertainty about the prospects of the claim on its merits and that this was a novel and complex claim with a number of possible defences available both at certification and at trial. Over 48,000 ticket holders attended the match even after it was announced that Messi, Suarez, and Busquets were not attending. Those who attended had arguably been compensated to some extent — they were voluntarily provided a free ticket for a future 2024 regular season home game, 50% off all stadium food and beverage during the match, and a free children's meal combo for youth 18 and under who attended the match. There was evidence in support of, and arguments to be made, that the advertisements made by the defendants were not false and misleading and did not make representations that Messi, Suarez, or Busquets would play in the game. The evidence also suggested that the bulk of the markups of the tickets was in the secondary market, i.e., resales of tickets after they were purchased from Vancouver Whitecaps FC, meaning it was not clear that the ticket prices were inflated by the defendants, at least in all circumstances. The evidence supported the defendants' position that Inter Miami CF made the decision shortly before the match that the players would not travel, and the defendants had no control over that decision. There were also issues that various ticket-holder groups may not have had standing under various causes of action given the lack of privity of contract between those who purchased on the secondary market and the defendants. Additionally, there would have been significant expenses incurred in respect of retaining experts to demonstrate various practices in the professional sports industry, and even if successful at trial, the plaintiffs faced the prospect of lengthy appeals.

Handling of objections

The court addressed the 12 objections received out of 50,657 class members. A number of objections were disregarded as they appeared to repeat misinformation or disinformation found on an internet form about the representative plaintiff, suggesting he had already received a refund and would potentially receive or had received other benefits — claims that appeared to be based on unsubstantiated internet rumours. A number of objections did not appear to object to the settlement itself but rather submitted that there should be no counsel fees, disbursements, or honorarium. The court gave little weight to one particular objection that appeared to be drafted by artificial intelligence and that included cases that were AI hallucinations. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that a class action is not a referendum by class members, and that a class member who is not satisfied with the litigation strategy can opt out. Some objectors sought direct distribution of the funds to class members rather than to the charitable organizations, but the court accepted that given the number of class members and the size of the settlement, a cy-pres donation was appropriate, as the bulk of the settlement funds would be dissipated by the costs for claims administration, leaving only a few dollars for each class member.

Counsel fees, disbursements, and the honorarium

Class counsel's fees of $156,750, which is 33% of the settlement amount and approximately a two-time multiplier on class counsel's hourly rate, were approved as reasonable in the circumstances. The court accepted the matter was complicated, involved the procedural complexity of class actions and substantive legal complexity, and that class counsel devoted a significant amount of time and resources without any third-party funding, bearing all the cost of the litigation risk. As for the representative plaintiff's honorarium, the court reduced the requested $2,500 to $1,500. The court concluded that Mr. Chun's involvement militates in favour of a modest sum, but found that an award of $2,500 would leave an impression that he was put in a conflict of interest in respect of the settlement and would be disproportionate to the benefit derived from the class members, the effort expended by Mr. Chun, and the risks he assumed. The court noted that Mr. Chun had been the subject of discussion on various internet boards in which his integrity had been impugned and in which he was the subject of some vitriolic language, being accused of conspiring with class counsel for a payday in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — allegations that were not substantiated. The $1,500 honorarium is to be paid as a disbursement.

The ruling and overall outcome

The Honourable Justice Majawa approved the settlement agreement on March 2, 2026, finding it fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class as a whole, falling within a zone of reasonableness. The plaintiff class obtained a settlement in which the defendants agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $475,000. After the approved counsel fees of $156,750 and the $1,500 honorarium for Mr. Chun — both to be paid from the settlement amount — the remaining funds are to be donated in equal shares to the three designated sports-related organizations. No exact per-member recovery amount can be determined, as there is no direct distribution to the approximately 50,657 class members under this cy-pres arrangement.