A federal judge from the Western District of Washington has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a Seattle Seahawks fan, which alleged that Ticketmaster and Live Nation (the owner of Ticketmaster) violated disability laws when they did not do enough to designate accessible tickets for the disabled available on their ticket exchange website, can continue.
The plaintiff in the case was Barry Long. Long, who is disabled, claimed he was unable to find wheelchair accessible tickets that met his needs when using the Exchange Website called www.ticketexchangebyticketmaster.com. The website connects fans wishing to resell sporting tickets they own to fans wishing to purchase those tickets.
Long alleged that he has “encountered a number of barriers to access to tickets to CenturyLink Field (home of the Seahawks),” including the website’s lack of information for accessible seats in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
Since the lawsuit was filed on Dec. 22, 2016, the defendants have modified the website to include (1) a “Click here for ADA Locations” link in the top right-hand corner of the webpage displaying the CenturyLink seating chart; and (2) an option to view “More Details” of a particular ticket. This provided potential purchasers with additional specifications about the corresponding seat, including information about whether the seat was wheelchair accessible.
However, persons selling tickets were not required to include any specific information about the accessibility of a given seat, according to the court. Thus, potential purchasers of wheelchair accessible seats were still not guaranteed sufficient information to determine whether a particular seat met their needs.
The latest versions eschews those features and directs anyone attempting to purchase Seahawks tickets to the Retail Sales Website, which shows all seats available for all games at CenturyLink Field–including all available wheelchair and companion seats.
The defendants alleged in a motion to dismiss that the Exchange Website “is not a place of public accommodation falling within the purview of the ADA and, in any event, the plaintiff’s discrimination claims are now moot because all accessible tickets are now sold in the same course and manner as all other tickets through the Retail Sales Website.”
While conceding that “a defendant’s voluntary removal of the alleged barriers prior to trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiff’s ADA claim.” Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Store Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011), the court noted that such actions must meet a stringent standard to make the claim moot.
“Applying this standard, the defendants’ mootness argument fails,” wrote the court. “The defendants have not put forth sufficient evidence suggesting that the challenged conduct will not recur. All the record shows is that the defendants changed the website by first adding a ‘Click here for ADA Locations’ link and a ‘More Details’ option. Then, right before the summary judgment hearing, the defendants abandoned the Exchange Website altogether by redirecting traffic to the Retail Sales Website. This evidence showing that the defendants voluntarily modified the Exchange Website throughout the pendency of this litigation is, without more, insufficient to moot the plaintiff’s claims. See Brooke v. A-Ventures, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-2868-HRH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193259, 2017 WL 5624941, at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2017). If anything, the defendants’ numerous changes to the Exchange Website since this lawsuit started showcases just how easy it is for the defendants to change their websites. The defendants could just as easily abandon the Exchange Website at any point in the future and revert back to one of the earlier versions. Indeed, the defendants have made no attempt to put forth any evidence to the contrary. For these reasons, the case is not moot, and the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this basis. The defendants’ Cross-Motion is therefore denied.”
Turning the public accommodations argument, the court determined that the Exchange Website is subject to the accessibility regulations under the ADA as a matter of law. This is because “CenturyLink is a physical, brick-and-mortar place and the Exchange Website and Retail Sales Website are services that allow patrons to purchase tickets for football games at CenturyLink,” wrote the court.
Barry Long, v. Live Nation Worldwide, INC., and Ticketmaster LLC; W.D. Wash.; C16-1961 TSZ, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122783; 7/23/18
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) Conrad Reynoldson, LEAD ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON CIVIL AND DISABILITY ADVOCATE, Seattle, WA USA; Christopher Robert Carney, CARNEY GILLESPIE ISITT PLLP, Seattle, WA USA. For Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. doing business as Ticketmaster, Defendant: Bradley J. Leimkuhler, Gregory F. Hurley, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Costa Mesa, CA USA; Elizabeth K Reeve, REEVE SHIMA, Seattle, WA USA. For Ticketmaster LLC, Defendant: Gregory F. Hurley, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Costa Mesa, CA USA.
