Settlement Spotlight
Active Investigations
-
California Early Termination Fee (ETF) Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Depakote Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Dilantin Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Drywall Price-Fixing, Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Kidney Dialysis Heart Attack, GranuFlo & NaturaLyte Recall Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Mesothelioma Asbestos Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Metal on Metal Replacement Hip Implant Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Propecia Loss of Sex Drive, Sexual Dysfunction Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Stevens Johnson (SJS) & Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Text Message Spam, Cell Phone Call TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Type 2 Diabetes Drugs Januvia, Byetta Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Unum/UnumProvident Disability Insurance Claim Denial Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Vaginal Mesh Sling Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Wage & Hour, Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Yaz/Yasmin, Ocella & Beyaz Birth Control Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Zithromax Z-Pak Azithromycin Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Zoloft & SSRI Antidepressant Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
Top Settlements
Top News
Top Drug Lawsuits
Class Action Lawsuit and Settlement News
| Ticketmaster Fee Class Action Settlement Rejected |
|
|
- Friday, 05 October 2012 03:00
Ticketmaster Fee Class Action Settlement Rejected
By Mike Holter
A judge has rejected the Ticketmaster fee class action lawsuit settlement reached last year, stating the deal doesn’t benefit consumers. The Ticketmaster settlement would have provided $1.50 and $5 coupon codes to more than 50 million Ticketmaster customers allegedly overcharged through excessive and deceptive processing and shipping fees.“In the court’s opinion, this settlement represents a windfall for Ticketmaster and does not represent ‘real value’ for Class Members,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman wrote in his September 26, 2012 decision.
Freeman noted that Class Members would be required to make further purchases from Ticketmaster in order to receive any benefit from the class action lawsuit settlement, while attorneys would have received $16.5 million in fees and expense reimbursements.
He also noted that the Ticketmaster Settlement Administrator was unable to reach over 10 million Class Members via email out of the total 50.7 million consumers eligible to receive benefits from the Ticketmaster fee settlement. With a 20% failure rate, Judge Freeman called the notification process ineffective.
“The fact that 10,178,696 emails were not delivered is of significant concern to the court,” Freeman wrote.
Customers alleged in the Ticketmaster class action lawsuit that the ticketing giant deceived and misled customers into believing that it’s Order Processing Fee was a pass-through of the amount that UPS charged Ticketmaster for that delivery when it was actually a profit generator for Ticketmaster. The lawsuit also asserts that Ticketmaster's UPS delivery charges are excessive and deceptive.
Ticketmaster collected an estimated $590 million in processing fees on 170 million transactions from 1999 to 2011, when the actual cost to process those transactions was $165 million, according to the class action lawsuit. Ticketmaster also overcharged 9 million customers $64 million in UPS shipping fees, which ranged from $15 to $20 per transaction. Class Members who paid these excessive shipping fees would only have received $5 back in the form of a coupon code.
Judge Freeman set a Status Conference for October 15, 2012.
The case is Curt Schlesinger, et al. v. Ticketmaster, Case No. BC304565, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Updated October 5th, 2012
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
Last Updated on Thursday, 27 December 2012 11:09



