The Third Circuit Sacks NFL Fans in Litigation Regarding Limited Super Bowl Tickets for Jersey Fans
- Tree of Knowledge Research
- Feb 11, 2016
- 3 min read
Well, another Super Bowl has come and gone. Whether football fans or not, everyone around the country watched as the Denver Broncos took down the Carolina Panthers 24 to 10 this February 7, 2016. An average of 111.9 million TV viewers watched the game with only about 71,088 people actually present in Levi's Stadium, according to CNN Money. Still, of those 111.9 million watching from their living rooms - probably all of them would have liked to be in attendance. Super Bowl tickets are a hot commodity, and with their expense and unavailability, thousands of fans go wanting each year. In 2014, two such frustrated fans brought suit against the National Football League in the District of New Jersey for not offering enough Super Bowl Tickets to the general public at a reasonable price. Just prior to Super Bowl 50, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the class action lawsuit, but may have given the two disgruntled fans a chance to make another play against America's favorite sports league.
In Finkelman, et al. v. National Football League, et al., No. 3:14-cv-0096 (D.N.J.), plaintiffs Josh Finkelman and Ben Hock-Parker of New Brunswick, NJ sued the NFL and its affiliates under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and a rarely litigated New Jersey Statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-35.1 - A.K.A. the New Jersey’s Ticket Law. The plaintiffs asserted that NFL’s method of selling tickets to Super Bowl XLVIII held at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey violated the State’s consumer protection laws and unjustly enriched the league. New Jersey’s Ticket Law bars the withholding of more than five percent of available seating to the general public for an event. According to the two fans, the league only released 900 tickets for the public lottery -- less than one percent of the total ticket sales. The remaining tickets went to the individual teams, corporate partners, media outlets, broadcasters, networks, etc. The plaintiffs maintained that, outside the lottery system, most public fans are forced to purchase tickets on the secondary market, where tickets are sold at substantially higher prices. According to the plaintiff's, the NFL and its franchisees ultimately benefit from these secondary market sales through lucrative contracts. Mr. Finkelman claimed he and many other fans were left to buy the tickets at the extraordinary price of $2,000 or more per ticket, when the tickets were normally worth $800 a seat.
According to Finkelman’s attorney, although the NFL has sold tickets this way for 50 years, New Jersey consumer protection laws are stricter than other jurisdictions. Despite their arguments, Judge Peter G. Sheridan for the U.S. District Court dismissed the case ruling that the two fans lacked Article III standing. The Judge maintained that Hoch-Parker lacked standing because he had not actually purchased any tickets to the game and Finkelman lacked standing and also could not plead causation as he never actually entered the NFL’s lottery and thus could not plead any injury resulting directly from the NFL’s alleged misconduct.
In late 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the Plaintiffs’ appeal; however, the three judge panel recently affirmed the district court’s ruling in its January 14th opinion. On appeal, Hoch-Parker did attempt to recast his injury as a “lost opportunity” suffered when he was unable to attend the big game; however, the Court of Appeals sided with the lower court claiming “[Hock-Parker] suffered no more injury than any of the possibly tens of thousands of people who thought about purchasing a ticket to the Super Bowl and chose not to.” The Court also agreed that Finkelman lacked standing and an injury-in-fact.
The Judges noted that the case came down to whether the plaintiffs had standing - not whether the NFL violated any laws. As Justice Fuentes explained in the 39-page ruling, "Our inquiry is more basic. Just as the realities of supply and demand mean that not everyone who wants to attend a popular event will be able to do so, federal courts, too, are not open to everyone who might want to litigate them. Our courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction, empowered by Article III of the Constitution to hear only 'cases' and 'controversies'" To that end, the Third Circuit remand the case back to the district court for a determination on whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint.
