Josh Finkelman v. National Football League
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 585
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Josh Finkelman and Ben Hoch‑Parker sued the NFL under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and a state "Ticket Law" (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8‑35.1), alleging unlawful “hold‑backs” of Super Bowl XLVIII tickets and seeking damages for tickets purchased on the secondary market.
- Plaintiffs allege the NFL allocated ~99% of Super Bowl tickets to teams and insiders, leaving ~1% for the public via an NFL lottery; Finkelman bought two resale tickets; Hoch‑Parker never bought any.
- District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice: it found (a) plaintiffs failed to state a Ticket Law claim, (b) Finkelman could not show causation under the NJ Consumer Fraud Act, (c) Hoch‑Parker lacked Article III standing, and (d) unjust enrichment failed as too attenuated.
- On appeal the Third Circuit focused on Article III standing (court’s threshold jurisdictional requirement), sua sponte asked for supplemental briefing, and reviewed dismissal de novo under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.
- The panel held Hoch‑Parker lacked standing because he purchased no ticket and alleged only a speculative lost opportunity; it also held Finkelman lacked standing because he failed to plead an injury fairly traceable to the NFL (his choice to buy on the secondary market meant his alleged losses were speculative).
- Court vacated the District Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) merits dismissal as to Finkelman (because NFL hadn’t raised standing below) but dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; New Jersey enforcement by the Attorney General remains available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — Hoch‑Parker | Lost opportunity to attend Super Bowl due to NFL withholding; statutory violation confers injury | No concrete, particularized injury — he purchased no ticket; injury is speculative | Dismissed: Hoch‑Parker lacks Article III standing (no particularized or actual injury) |
| Article III standing — Finkelman (inability to buy face‑price ticket) | But for NFL withholding, he would have obtained face‑price tickets | Finkelman voluntarily did not enter the NFL lottery; his inability to get face‑price tickets is not traceable to NFL conduct | Dismissed: cannot trace his injury to NFL because he chose the secondary market; theory fails |
| Article III standing — Finkelman (price‑inflation on resale market) | Resale price was inflated by NFL withholding; injury is increased price paid | Alleged price effect is speculative: withholding could increase or decrease secondary supply/prices; complaint lacks factual allegations to show traceability or plausibility | Dismissed: conjectural theory of resale market price effects fails to plead a concrete, traceable injury |
| Unjust enrichment (attenuated relationship) | Plaintiffs paid supracritical prices and defendants were unjustly enriched | Relationship between buyer and NFL is too remote for quasi‑contract relief | District Court’s dismissal of unjust enrichment was vacated as to Finkelman for jurisdictional reasons but merits remain for district court to consider on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim, not mere conjecture)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept bald assertions or legal conclusions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must assure subject‑matter jurisdiction before deciding merits)
- Dominguez v. UAL Corp., 666 F.3d 1359 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (hypothetical resale‑market injuries may be speculative and insufficient for Article III standing)