Finkelman v. National Football League
877 F.3d 504
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Super Bowl XLVIII (Feb. 2014, MetLife Stadium, NJ): NFL allegedly withheld ~99% of tickets from public sale, selling ~1% via a public lottery. 75% of withheld tickets were allocated to teams and 25% to league insiders and sponsors.
- Plaintiff Josh Finkelman bought two secondary-market tickets (face value $800 each) for $2,000 each; he did not enter the NFL lottery.
- Finkelman sued under New Jersey’s Ticket Law (a provision of the CFA) alleging the NFL unlawfully withheld more than 5% of event tickets and that this withholding inflated secondary-market prices.
- The District Court dismissed the initial complaint (failure to plead a statutory ‘‘withhold’’ and lack of causation because plaintiff did not enter the lottery). The Third Circuit initially found lack of Article III standing and remanded for potential amendment.
- Finkelman filed a Second Amended Complaint adding an economist’s opinion that the NFL’s allocation funnel (insider → broker → secondary market) reduced fan-to-fan sales, decreased secondary-market supply, and raised prices.
- The District Court again dismissed for lack of standing and for failure to state a Ticket Law violation. On second appeal, the Third Circuit reversed on standing, finding the new economic allegations sufficiently specific and plausible to survive pleading-stage review; merits were deferred to the New Jersey Supreme Court for certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — causation and injury from alleged withholding | NFL withholding reduced secondary-market supply and raised prices via insider-to-broker resale dynamics; economic facts pleaded by an expert show a plausible causal chain | Failing to enter the lottery breaks causation for face-value injury; secondary-market effects are speculative because insiders might resell or sell at lower prices, so causal link is not established | Reversed District Court: plaintiff plausibly pleaded economic facts tying withholding to higher secondary prices; standing exists at pleading stage |
| Violation of NJ Ticket Law (whether defendants ‘‘withheld’’ tickets >5%) | (Implicit) Under Ticket Law, allocation that denies public access qualifies as ‘‘withholding’’ of tickets | District Court: Defendants allocated tickets but did not physically ‘‘withhold’’ them from their custody; plaintiff’s failure to enter lottery undermines causation under CFA | Court deferred ruling on merits/statutory interpretation to New Jersey Supreme Court via certification; did not decide on Ticket Law violation now |
Key Cases Cited
- Finkelman v. Nat’l Football League, 810 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2016) (prior appellate decision addressing standing)
- Dominguez v. UAL Corp., 666 F.3d 1359 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (insufficient expert evidence at summary stage to show resale-market price effects)
- Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (pleading-stage economic theory held sufficient when factual allegations are specific and susceptible to proof)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing burden and proof across litigation stages)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards limiting conclusory assertions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional prerequisite that court must resolve standing before merits)
- Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 432 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2005) (economic injury as a paradigmatic injury-in-fact)