Nature of the Case: Class action alleging Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use and Purchase Policy distort and inflate secondary market ticket prices, causing consumer harm and financial gain for Ticketmaster.
Lower Court Decision: Certified claims under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) but not under the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, or unjust enrichment.
Appeal and Cross-Appeal
Ticketmaster's Appeal:
Challenged the certification of claims under BPCPA without detailed causation of loss.
Argued against broad definitions of “consumer” and “supplier”.
Contested certification of common issues on damages without a plausible assessment method.
Plaintiff's Cross-Appeal:
Challenged refusal to certify claims under the Competition Act and for restoration under BPCPA.
Sought certification for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and disgorgement.
Decision
Outcome: Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part.
The case outcome was mixed, with both parties having partial successes.
Ticketmaster succeeded in having the damages certification set aside due to the lack of a plausible methodology for class-wide damage assessment.
Plaintiff (David Gomel) succeeded in having some of his claims remitted for reconsideration, including those under the BPCPA, Competition Act, and unjust enrichment.
Negligent Misrepresentation: Dismissed.
The document does not specify a monetary award.
Key Points
Deceptive Practices (BPCPA): Claims of misrepresentation about ticket bot enforcement were valid.
Consumer and Supplier Definitions: Broad interpretation upheld; privity of contract not necessary under BPCPA.
Damages Methodology: Essential for class-wide damage assessment, impacting certification.
