Batson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5499
7th Cir.2014Background
- Batson purchased a one-ticket for O.A.R. at Charter One Pavilion; the ticket price included a $9 parking fee regardless of need to park.
- Batson had no car and walked to the venue; he discovered the $9 parking fee on the ticket after purchase.
- Batson alleged an unfair practice under Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (CF A) based on tying a parking charge to the concert ticket; he sought relief for himself and a proposed class.
- District court dismissed Batson’s CFA claim under 12(b)(6) after Batson amended to drop federal antitrust and California unfair competition theories; jurisdiction relied on CAFA to allow an Illinois CFA claim.
- Batson appeals; the Seventh Circuit affirms, holding the CFA claim fails under Sperry factors and is not an unfair practice.
- Court notes Batson may not allege tying that would violate antitrust law absent market power; examines public policy and oppressive-nature prongs; concludes dismissal proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parking tie-in violates the Illinois CFA under Sperry factors | Batson argues tying to parking is unfair under CFA | Live Nation contends no CFA unfairness without antitrust violation and no improper tying | No; tying fails Sperry test; no public policy violation; no substantial injury shown |
| Whether public policy against tying or other policies support CFA unfairness | Batson cites public policy against tying, diversity in music, and walking | Live Nation argues no applicable policy support without antitrust violation | No; public policy arguments fail to establish unfairness |
| Whether the conduct is impermissibly oppressive under Sperry factor | Batson was unable to avoid paying the fee after purchase | Defendant contends price was disclosed and purchase unavoidable, not oppressive | No; not oppressive where Batson agreed to face value price; unhelpful to claim unfairness |
| Whether Batson adequately states substantial injury under Sperry | The fee caused substantial injury by bundling cost; non-refundable ticket traps consumer | Injury may be avoided by going elsewhere; non-refundability insufficient | No; injury not substantial or not beyond consumer’s ability to avoid; fails CFA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill.2d 403 (Ill. 2002) (Sperry-like framework; unfairness requires at least one factor)
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. FTC, 405 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1972) (establishes factors for unfair practice test under CFA)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1992) (antitrust tying standards for determining unlawful tie)
- Indep. Ink, Inc. v. United States, 547 U.S. 208 (U.S. 2006) (reaffirms tying analysis relies on market power and effects)
- Laughlin v. Evanston Hosp., 133 Ill.2d 374 (Ill. 1990) (limits CFA to deceptive practices; not imply broad antitrust enforcement)
- Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (unfairness under CFA requires more than price pain; optional alternatives matter)