Weinstein v. Ebay, Inc.
819 F. Supp. 2d 219
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Defendants eBay, Inc., StubHub, Inc., and the New York Yankees Partnership moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- eBay acquired StubHub in 2007; StubHub is a secondary ticket marketplace where third parties resell tickets; sellers are anonymous; there is no ticket ownership by StubHub.
- Plaintiff alleges a 2007 agreement among StubHub, the Yankees, and MLB to make StubHub the exclusive resale marketplace for many Yankees games.
- Yankees sell tickets via online box office with electronic tickets through Ticketmaster; StubHub link exists; electronic tickets may not reflect face value.
- Plaintiff Andrea Weinstein bought six Yankee tickets on StubHub in 2010; allegations focus on ACAL violations (25.07, 25.13, 25.23) and GBL § 349; claims hinge on failure to disclose face value and seller anonymity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue eBay | Weinstein claims eBay, via StubHub, caused injury | No direct injury; standing hinges on veil-piercing; no agency | Plaintiff lacks standing to sue eBay; veil-piercing not pleaded; claims dismissed against eBay. |
| ACAL § 25.07 applicability | eBay/StubHub liable for omitting face value; Yankees liable for direct sales | § 25.07 applies to operators; eBay/StubHub exempt; Yankees not liable for third-party resales | ACAL § 25.07 claims fail as to all defendants; only Yankees could be operator, and plaintiff’s theory fails. |
| ACAL §§ 25.13/25.23 licensing and posting | Derivative liability for licensing and price-list obligations | eBay/StubHub exempt under § 25.13; § 25.23 applies to licensees; Yankees not liable | ACAL §§ 25.13 and 25.23 claims dismissed; aiding/abetting theory rejected. |
| GBL § 349 deception claim | Deceptive because tickets appear purchased from Yankees, not StubHub | No deception; disclosures on StubHub; injury not shown | GBL § 349 claim dismissed; no material deception or injury pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility required for claims)
- Morris v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin., 603 N.E.2d 1157 (1993) (veil piercing requires domination and fraud/wrong)
- Billy v. Consol. Mach. Tool Corp., 432 N.Y.S.2d 879 (1980) (veil piercing limitations; ownership alone insufficient)
- Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1991) (corporate veil factors; domination concerns)
- Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 623 N.E.2d 741 (1995) (NY deception standard; objective reasonableness)
- Chiste v. Hotels.com L.P., 756 F. Supp. 2d 382 (2010) (deception require material concealment and injury)