StubHub Arbitration Ruling Could Lead to More Individual Ticket Buyer Claims

A lawyer serving as lead counsel for a StubHub customer whose proposed class claims were ordered into arbitration says the legal team is considering additional individual claims from ticket buyers, potentially shifting the dispute into what is commonly known as mass arbitration.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled that plaintiff Louis Sanquini must pursue his claims against StubHub and CEO Eric Baker through individual arbitration rather than as a proposed class action in federal court. Rakoff issued a detailed opinion on Sept. 21, 2026, explaining a Sept. 15 order compelling arbitration and staying the lawsuit. The case is Sanquini v. StubHub, Inc., et al., No. 26-cv-5880, in the Southern District of New York.

Keven Steinberg of Steinberg Law, lead counsel for Sanquini, provided comments to Law Commentary on Sept. 16, after Rakoff entered the initial arbitration order and before the judge released his full opinion.

“Today’s ruling is only the first step. StubHub fought to keep ticket buyers out of court and out of a class action -- now it will face those same buyers one at a time, potentially tens of thousands of times over. StubHub got exactly what it asked for. It may come to regret it,” Steinberg said.

Steinberg’s reference to potentially thousands of claims describes a strategy counsel is considering. The court has made no finding about how many other StubHub customers may have viable claims, and the federal record does not establish that thousands of arbitration demands have been filed.

Sanquini sued StubHub and Baker in July after purchasing tickets through the platform, including seats for a KISS concert at Madison Square Garden in 2023 and a New York Red Bulls soccer match in 2024. His complaint alleges that he would have declined to use StubHub, or would have paid less, if he had known about Baker’s financial relationship with Andro Capital.

The complaint alleges that Baker is a part owner and managing director of Andro, a professional ticket reseller that has sold tickets through StubHub since approximately 2008. Sanquini accuses the company of presenting StubHub as a marketplace connecting ticket buyers and sellers while failing to adequately disclose Baker’s financial interest in a professional reseller operating on the platform.

StubHub has maintained that Baker’s ownership interest and involvement with Andro were disclosed through the company’s public securities filings. The company has also described Andro as one of many sellers using StubHub and said the reseller accounts for a small portion of the platform’s overall business.

Law Commentary covered the lawsuit in July and published a Sept. 22 update examining Rakoff’s arbitration ruling and the judge’s finding that clicking StubHub’s “Buy Now” button bound Sanquini to the platform’s terms.

Rakoff found that StubHub gave Sanquini reasonably conspicuous notice of its user agreement before he completed his purchases. Immediately above the “Buy Now” button, the checkout page stated that completing the transaction meant accepting StubHub’s terms and conditions.

The agreement included a notice advising U.S. customers that covered disputes generally must be submitted to binding arbitration unless the customer opts out. It also provides that customers subject to the provision must pursue claims individually rather than as plaintiffs or class members in a class or representative proceeding.

Rakoff wrote that Sanquini “unambiguously manifested his assent” by clicking the purchase button. Sanquini did not deny clicking it and did not claim that he exercised the agreement’s 30-day arbitration opt-out provision.

Sanquini also argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable under California law. Rakoff rejected the challenge after examining the presentation of the agreement and its opt-out provision. He further concluded that Baker could enforce the arbitration agreement even though the StubHub CEO was not personally a party to Sanquini’s customer contract.

The judge applied equitable estoppel, finding that Sanquini’s allegations against Baker and StubHub were based on the same underlying dispute. Sanquini asserted his four causes of action against both defendants without distinguishing between their alleged conduct.

Rakoff’s decision addressed the enforceability and scope of the arbitration agreement. It did not resolve the fraud, unjust enrichment, implied-covenant or New York consumer-protection claims asserted in Sanquini’s complaint.

Steinberg pointed to that procedural scope in his Sept. 16 comments, saying Rakoff “did not rule on the merits of the Andro Capital allegations” and “did not make any finding about StubHub’s conduct.”

StubHub had asked the court to compel arbitration or, alternatively, dismiss Sanquini’s complaint. Rakoff granted the arbitration request, stayed the federal case pending completion of arbitration and denied the alternative motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot.

Counsel for Sanquini is now considering whether additional ticket buyers could pursue their own individual arbitration claims based on similar allegations. Mass arbitration generally involves lawyers coordinating numerous separate arbitration demands arising from similar disputes when contracts prevent customers from proceeding together through a class action.

Each claimant still pursues an individual case, and the merits of one customer’s claim do not establish that another customer is entitled to recover. Any additional StubHub claims would depend on the circumstances surrounding those purchasers, the agreements governing their transactions and the allegations they seek to pursue.

Sanquini’s federal case remains stayed while his claims proceed through arbitration. Steinberg says counsel is considering additional individual claims by other StubHub ticket purchasers.