Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
430 Md. 14
| Md. | 2013Background
- This case arises from four certified questions under Md. Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act about Baltimore City ticket-sale ordinances.
- Defendants are Lyric Productions LLC and Ticketmaster; Ticketmaster sells tickets through outlets, online, and by phone, charging a service charge.
- Bourgeois bought a Lyric concert ticket online in 2009; ticket price $52 with a service charge of over $12; he knew of the charge before purchase.
- Baltimore City ordinances at issue include Art. 15, Subtitle 21 (licensing, max service charges, scalping) and Art. 19, § 55-1 (ticket scalping), plus related provisions; the Facility Agreement governs Ticketmaster’s rights.
- The Facility Agreement grants Ticketmaster exclusive outlet/telephone sales; authorizes service charges; includes Rider agreements and rebates to Lyric; Lyric box office is a Ticketmaster outlet; facility fees exist in practice.
- District Court certified four questions about licensing of agencies, application of §55-1 to original sales vs. resales, exemption under §55-1(b), and the viability of a common-law money had and received claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §21-1 require licensing of a ticket agency when authorized to sell for an exhibitor? | Bourgeois argues §21-1(a) broad; §21-1(b) exempts agents selling at established price. | Ticketmaster argues §21-1(a) covers only resellers; the exception in §21-1(b) does not apply to original sales at above-established prices. | Yes: agency not required to be licensed when authorized to sell as an exhibitor’s agent; invalid to charge above established price. |
| Does §55-1 apply to original sales or only resales? | §55-1 shows unlawful selling above price; applies to all sales. | §55-1 should be read as limiting to resales. | §55-1(a) applies to original sales as well as resales; unconstrained by resales-only reading. |
| Does §55-1(b) permit an unlicensed agent to collect a service charge above the price? | If licensed, agency may collect 50c; unlicensed should be barred. | Exemption in §55-1(b) could allow excess only if licensed under Subtitle 21. | §55-1(b) does not permit unlicensed agents to collect above established price; only licensed agencies may collect 50c. |
| Does common-law money had and received lie for money paid in violation of Baltimore City ordinances? | Money had and received is viable for restitution for overcharges. | Contractual illegality bars recovery when the contract is fully executed; exceptions apply for usury. | Yes: common-law money had and received remains viable; recoveries allowed for executory contracts; barred for fully consummated contracts absent special circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- State, Use of Emp. Sec. Bd. v. Rucker, 211 Md. 153 (Md. 1956) (money had and received analysis, implied debt and refund concept)
- Harrington v. Bochenski, 140 Md. 24 (Md. 1922) (recovery when contract is illegal; usury exception)
- Van Meter v. Wilkinson, 187 Md. 492 (Md. 1947) (pari delicto considerations in illegal contracts)
- Benson v. State, 389 Md. 615 (Md. 2005) (viability of money had and received; restitution context)
- McMillan v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., — S.W.3d.— (Ark. 2012) (statutory interpretation of ticket-price-excess in original sale)