CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

TICKETNETWORK, INC.,
Index No.
Plaintiff,

v. SUMMONS

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, Attorney

General of the State of New York, in her
official capacit y,

Defendant.

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action, a copy of

which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer upon the undersigned

attorney for the Plaintiff within twenty (20) days after the service of the summons, exclusive of

the date of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or

within thirty (30) days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner;

and in case of your failure to submit answering papers, judgment will be taken against you by

default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

Plaintiff designates New York County as the venue for this action pursuant to section 505

of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 1 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

Dated: September 6, 2018

New York, New York

By: _/s/ Peter C. Harvey________________

Peter C. Harvey
Derek Borchardt
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 336-2000
pcharvey@pbwt.com
dborchardt@pbwt.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff TicketNetwork, Inc.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 2 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

TICKETNETWORK, INC.,
Index No.
Plaintiff,

v. COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, Attorney
General of the State of New York, in her
official capacit y,

Defendant.

TicketNetwork, Inc. (“TicketNetwork”), by its attorneys, Patterson Belknap Webb &

Tyler LLP, for its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney

General of the State of New York (the “Attorney General”), hereby alleges as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a declaratory judgment action by TicketNetwork, a company that hosts a

leading online marketplace for live event ticket resale, against the Attorney General, who has

threatened to sue TicketNetwork on the basis that its marketplace allegedly violates various New

York state consumer protection statutes.

2. All tickets listed for sale on TicketNetwork’s online marketplace are offered and

sold by independent third-party sellers to independent ticket buyers. All information describing

the tickets offered for sale is provided by these third-party ticket sellers. While TicketNetwork

hosts the online marketplace for these transactions, it does not itself own any ticket inventory or

sell any tickets.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 3 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

3. In most cases, the tickets offered for sale on TicketNetwork’s marketplace are

already held by the third-party sellers. In some instances, however, sellers may list tickets for

sale that are not yet in their immediate possession. For example, an independent ticket seller

may offer tickets for sale that the seller already has contracted to purchase but does not yet have

physical possession of. In other cases, a seller may offer tickets for sale that have not yet been

purchased but, based on the seller’s experience both in the industry and with the ticket holder,

reasonably expects the tickets can be and will be timely procured. Despite the certain amount of

unavoidable risk that is inherent in these sorts of offers to sell tickets not yet in hand, it is

extremely rare that sellers who offer tickets for sale on TicketNetwork’s marketplace are unable

to fulfill their orders. For the miniscule fraction of orders that are unfortunately not fulfilled, the

customer receives a 100% refund of all charges. TicketNetwork fully discloses to potential

customers visiting its website, or any other website that uses its marketplace, that the tickets

listed for sale by independent third-party sellers may not be in hand when listed and that there is

some small risk that a ticket order may not be fulfilled.

4. Even with such disclosure, the Attorney General maintains that TicketNetwork is

responsible for the ticket sales occurring on its Internet marketplace, and that the sales described

above violate New York law. In the Attorney General’s view, as TicketNetwork understands it,

any time an independent seller offers a ticket for sale that the seller does not yet own but intends

to procure, the seller has automatically committed a fraudulent and unlawful act because the

buyer may have the misimpression that the seller has possession of the ticket at the time of the

sale, when the buyer’s credit card is charged. The Attorney General claims that TicketNetwork

is responsible for the allegedly illegal conduct—the assumed misconception by the ticket

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 4 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

buyer—simply because TicketNetwork provides a marketplace through which such ticket offers

are made by independent sellers to independent buyers.

5. The Attorney General’s view is ill-conceived, legally meritless and, if adopted,

would lead to a serious disruption of common business practices across many industries. In fact,

it is a common and entirely lawful business practice to offer products for sale that are not yet in

the possession of the seller, but will be timely procured by the seller after the customer pays for

the item. The sellers that utilize TicketNetwork’s online marketplace do not violate the law

when they describe and list tickets for sale that they intend to, and have a substantial probability

that they will be able to, timely procure.

6. Even if such sale offers were unlawful, there is an even more fundamental flaw

with the Attorney General’s claims: under the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996,

Congress has directed that providers of online interactive services like TicketNetwork’s

marketplace are not responsible for the conduct of the independent sellers or buyers that use the

platform. The Attorney General seeks to punish TicketNetwork for the ticket descriptions and

sales conduct of third parties who use TicketNetwork’s online marketplace. The company,

however, is immune from the Attorney General’s claims as a matter of federal law.

7. Despite the above facts, and despite TicketNetwork’s voluminous provision of

requested documents and innumerable written communications, phone calls and in-person

meetings with the Attorney General’s Office, cooperating with and attempting to address the

Attorney General’s concerns, on or about September 4, 2018, the Attorney General

communicated to TicketNetwork that if it did not agree to pay millions of dollars into state

coffers as a settled resolution of the Attorney General’s claims by mid-September, then the

Attorney General would pursue a civil action against the company. TicketNetwork cannot

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

accede to the Attorney General’s demands and regrets that it has no choice but to seek the

protection of this Court by way of declaratory judgment in order to protect its lawful business.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, TicketNetwork, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business in South Windsor, Connecticut.

9. Defendant, Barbara D. Underwood, is the Attorney General of the State of New

York. She is named in this action in her official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action is proper pursuant to § 3001 of

the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”).

11. Venue in New York County is proper under CPLR § 505.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. TicketNetwork’s Safe, Secure and Effective Online Marketplace

for Ticket Resale

12. TicketNetwork is a high-tech leader in the ticket resale industry. Founded in

2002, TicketNetwork hosts a leading online marketplace—located at TicketNetwork.com, the

company’s signature retail website1—where ticket sellers list and customers buy millions of

tickets annually for concerts, sports, theater, and other live events around the globe. Since 2002,

TicketNetwork has been the industry leader in implementing and refining pro-consumer business

practices that ensure customers receive top-notch customer service and support.

13. While TicketNetwork provides the online marketplace for the transactions

between ticket buyers and sellers, it does not itself sell any tickets. TicketNetwork does not

1
TicketNetwork and third-party marketers also maintain other similar websites through which the
TicketNetwork marketplace may be accessed by potential customers.
4

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

acquire, maintain or offer for sale any of its own tickets. All tickets offered for sale on

TicketNetwork’s marketplace are offered by third-party sellers who provide the descriptions and

other particulars of the ticket offering, such as the venue area and other details about the tickets.

These independent third-party sellers include professional ticket resellers, venue box offices,

event promoters, and companies or individuals with unwanted tickets.

14. Independent ticket sellers list tickets for sale on TicketNetwork’s marketplace by

venue area—for example, by venue section and row—rather than by specific seat number.

TicketNetwork backs all tickets offered on all the websites it services with a 100% Money-Back

Guarantee under which the company will fully refund any customer who does not receive tickets

for the venue area they specified or an equivalent or better area, meaning one closer to the stage

or field or with a better vantage point.

15. TicketNetwork provides a safe, secure and effective way for customers to

purchase tickets for live events. Among numerous pro-consumer business practices, the

company invests millions of dollars in information technology security infrastructure to ensure

that its customers’ credit card and other personally identifiable information are safe and secure.

Additionally, the company monitors the performance of the sellers who use its marketplace and

takes action to exclude unreliable sellers. Consequently, approximately 99% of orders placed

through the TicketNetwork marketplace result in timely delivery of tickets for the exact venue

area ordered or an equivalent or better area. And, based on TicketNetwork’s guarantee policy,

for the fraction of orders that are not fulfilled, the customer is fully refunded.

16. These successful business practices have garnered TicketNetwork a reputation for

quality and customer satisfaction and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau. While

TicketNetwork’s marketplace facilitates the sale of millions of tickets each year to events

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 7 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

throughout the world, the company only receives a miniscule number of consumer complaints.

On average, for every one escalated consumer complaint TicketNetwork receives, over 20,000

ticket orders are placed on TicketNetwork’s marketplace.

B. Ticket Sellers May Offer Tickets for Sale Before They Are “In Hand”

17. Most of the tickets offered for sale on TicketNetwork’s marketplace are already

held by the seller. In some cases, however, sellers may list tickets for sale that are not yet “in

hand.” For example, a ticket seller may offer tickets for sale on TicketNetwork’s marketplace

that the seller has already paid for but has not yet received from the venue or promoter. Or, a

ticket seller may offer tickets for sale on the marketplace that the seller has already contracted to

purchase, but has not yet paid for and not yet received. In other cases, a seller may offer tickets

for sale that have not yet been purchased, but, based on the seller’s experience in the industry

and knowledge of the ticket holder, the seller expects the tickets will be timely procured and the

sales transaction successfully completed. Despite the certain amount of unavoidable risk that is

inherent in offers to sell tickets not yet in hand, it is extremely rare that sellers are unable to

fulfill their orders. As discussed previously, the customer is fully refunded for the miniscule

fraction of orders that are not fulfilled.

18. TicketNetwork.com discloses to potential customers that tickets may not be in

hand at the time they are offered for sale. The website’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

section explains:

When will my tickets ship, and how soon will they arrive?

Many ticket sellers make their tickets available to you before they
have even been printed, which gives customers an edge on getting
great seats in advance. Because this sometimes happens, tickets
may not be “in hand” at the time of purchase.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 8 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

Seller notes often indicate when an order will ship (at the latest), so
customers know when to expect their tickets. They may also note
that tickets are “in hand,” which means they can ship immediately.
After your tickets have shipped, you will receive a FedEx tracking
number, so you may track your purchase.

Either way, we guarantee your tickets will arrive in time. View

our 100% Guarantee for more details.

FAQs, TicketNetwork.com, https://www.ticketnetwork.com/en/help (emphasis added).

19. If an independent seller states that tickets are not yet in hand, then before a

customer pays for the tickets, the customer is provided with the latest date the tickets will be

delivered and this note: “The seller has not yet received your tickets, but you’ll get them before

the event. When the seller receives your tickets, they’ll be delivered in the manner you select.”

20. TicketNetwork’s terms and policies disclose that “[s]ome ticket listings on [the

site] may only be representations of available tickets and not actual seat locations or currently

available tickets.” The terms and policies further disclose that ticket orders may not be fulfilled

if the tickets ordered, or equivalent or better tickets, are not available. Terms & Policies,

TicketNetwork.com, https://www.ticketnetwork.com/en/policies.

C. The Attorney General’s Incorrect View That Offering a Ticket

for Sale That an Independent Ticket Seller Does Not Yet Physically
Possess is “Speculative” and Per Se Illegal

21. At some point in time unknown to TicketNetwork, the Attorney General decided

to stage a radical attack upon TicketNetwork’s successful business.

22. On or about December 30, 2016, the Attorney General issued a Subpoena to

TicketNetwork seeking extensive business records regarding the tickets sold on the company’s

online marketplace. TicketNetwork has cooperated fully with the Attorney General’s inquiry.

To date TicketNetwork has produced over 4,500 pages of documents to the Attorney General.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 9 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

Additionally, TicketNetwork’s representatives have had numerous conference calls and meetings

with the Attorney General’s Office to explain the company’s records and business practices.

23. On or about August 3, 2018, the Attorney General communicated to

TicketNetwork its view that because third-party ticket sellers may use its online marketplace for

sales in which the seller does not yet have the tickets in hand at the time of the offer, or at the

time the buyer’s credit card is charged, TicketNetwork, in the Attorney General’s view, is

violating several New York state laws that prohibit fraudulent and deceptive conduct. The

Attorney General asserts—without any legal authority—that any time an independent seller has

made a sale offer without yet having the physical tickets in hand, or at least a written contract or

receipt for the tickets, the seller has automatically committed a fraudulent and illegal act. Under

the Attorney General’s logic, the sale offer in these circumstances is “speculative.” The

Attorney General further asserts that, because TicketNetwork provides a marketplace in which

such so-called “speculative” offers are made, TicketNetwork is responsible for the allegedly

illegal conduct.

24. The Attorney General’s view is ill-conceived, legally meritless, and would lead to

a serious disruption of common business practices across many industries if it were adopted. In

fact, it is entirely ordinary for sellers to offer products for sale that the seller does not own at the

time of the offer. For instance, it is an accepted business practice in New York, particularly in

both the online and bricks-and-mortar retail sector, to offer products for sale that the retailer does

not possess. This practice is known as “drop shipping.” Once an order is placed by a customer,

the retailer purchases the product from a third party, such as a manufacturer or distributor, and

has the third party facilitate delivery of the product directly to the customer. Companies, like

those that sell products on Amazon’s and eBay’s online platforms, engage in this practice

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 10 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

regularly. New York state government recognizes this practice as lawful commercial conduct.

Indeed, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance even provides guidance

regarding the sales tax treatment of drop shipment sales. See Tax Bull. ST-190, N.Y. Dep’t of

Tax and Finance (Aug. 5, 2014), https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/tg_bulletins/sales/b14_190s.pdf. If

the Attorney General’s view propounded to TicketNetwork were correct, it would necessarily

invalidate this common and accepted retail sales practice.

25. The Attorney General appears to believe that offers to sell products inherently

represent that the seller already owns the product. But that is not the case. A promise to sell a

product does not by any means imply that the seller already owns the product at the time the

offer is made. The law allows parties, including ticket sellers, to contract to sell assets that they

intend and are able to procure but do not yet own, and the Attorney General’s radical claim

otherwise is without merit.

26. Furthermore, the New York Legislature recently confirmed that it is not unlawful

to offer to sell a live event ticket before the ticket is in hand. On June 20, 2018, the Legislature

passed Senate Bill No. 8501-B/Assembly Bill No. 8245-C, which provides in Section 1—now

codified in New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.10—that when a ticket seller

offers tickets for sale that the seller does not yet possess and has not yet contracted to purchase,

the seller must disclose these facts to the buyer before the transaction is completed. Importantly,

the bill does not prohibit these sorts of offers to sell tickets that the seller does not yet possess

and has not yet contracted to purchase, but merely requires disclosure of the nature of the offer.

If the Attorney General were correct that these sorts of sale offers were unlawful, it would

effectively overrule the judgment of the Legislature, which has clearly affirmed the lawfulness of

this sales practice so long as sufficient disclosure is made. Furthermore, as discussed above,

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 11 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

TicketNetwork.com already provides clear disclosures to ticket purchasers who use

TicketNetwork’s marketplace that tickets may be offered for sale on the platform by sellers who

do not yet have the tickets in hand.

D. TicketNetwork’s Immunity under the Communications Decency Act

27. There is an even more fundamental problem with the Attorney General’s claims:

TicketNetwork is immune from liability for the Attorney General’s claims pursuant to Section

230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the “CDA”), codified at Title 47,

United States Code, Section 230.

28. The CDA provides that, “No provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall

be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information

content provider.” § 230(c)(1). “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be

imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with” this principle. § 230(e)(3).

29. As such, the CDA directs that providers of online interactive services like

TicketNetwork are not responsible for the content provided by users and, therefore, are immune

from any claim under state law that seeks to hold them liable for user conduct.

30. Because the Attorney General seeks to hold TicketNetwork liable based on the

practices of third-party ticket sellers who use TicketNetwork’s online marketplace, the CDA bars

the Attorney General’s claims. Even if the Attorney General were correct (she is not) in her

contention that offers to sell products that are not yet owned are fraudulent, nonetheless,

TicketNetwork cannot be held liable for ticket descriptions or other language provided by third-

party sellers that accompanies sale offers on TicketNetwork’s online marketplace.

31. Indeed, one court already has held, in a case that presented claims essentially

identical to the Attorney General’s claims here, that TicketNetwork is a protected interactive

10

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 12 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

computer service provider under the CDA for ticket sales made by independent ticket sellers. In

Milgram v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. et al., 16 A.3d 1113 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2010), the Attorney

General of the State of New Jersey claimed that TicketNetwork was liable for fraudulent conduct

because its marketplace had been used by third-party sellers to offer for sale certain Bruce

Springsteen concert tickets that the sellers did not yet own. The Superior Court of New Jersey

held that TicketNetwork was entitled to immunity under the CDA. The Court explained that

TicketNetwork’s services “help to create and maintain a vibrant, competitive market” for ticket

sales and must be protected in accordance with “Congress’ intent to encourage commerce over

the Internet and ensure interactive computer services are not held responsible for how third

parties use their services.” Id. at 1127.

32. The New Jersey Superior Court’s decision clearly demonstrates that

TicketNetwork is immune from attempts to hold the company liable under state law for the sales

practices of third-party users of the marketplace. While the Attorney General has presented no

court decision or other valid basis to rebut TicketNetwork’s immunity under the CDA, the

Attorney General nonetheless continues to threaten to sue TicketNetwork for its protected

conduct.

E. The Attorney General’s False Claim That TicketNetwork Misrepresents the

Practices of Ticket Sellers

33. The Attorney General also claims that TicketNetwork misrepresents to ticket

purchasers that independent ticket sellers on the marketplace necessarily have possession of the

tickets at the time the transaction is processed when, in fact, the seller may not own the ticket at

that moment. According to the Attorney General, TicketNetwork allows these sales to occur

while the customer has the mistaken belief that the ticket seller necessarily has the tickets at the

11

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 13 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

point of sale. The Attorney General claims that this alleged misrepresentation by TicketNetwork

violates several state laws.

34. The Attorney General is mistaken. TicketNetwork does not misrepresent, and has

never misrepresented, to ticket purchasers the nature of the tickets offered for sale on its

marketplace. TicketNetwork discloses clearly and unmistakably on its website that it provides a

marketplace for sales by third parties who provide the information about their sale offers to that

marketplace. TicketNetwork’s FAQs discloses that sellers may list tickets for sale on the

marketplace that are not yet in hand. Simply stated, TicketNetwork has made no

misrepresentation.

F. The Necessity of Declaratory Relief

35. TicketNetwork has explained to the Attorney General that its conduct is entirely

lawful and immune from liability under the CDA. Despite TicketNetwork’s entreaties, on or

about September 4, 2018, the Attorney General communicated to TicketNetwork that, if the

company would not agree by mid-September to pay millions of dollars into state coffers as a

settled resolution of the Attorney General’s claims—a sum multiples higher than

TicketNetwork’s income generated from the sales at issue—then the Attorney General would file

a civil action against the company. TicketNetwork cannot accede to the Attorney General’s

excessive demands. TicketNetwork regrets that in order to protect its business, it has no choice

but to seek from this Court a judicial declaration that its conduct is lawful.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment – TicketNetwork’s Marketplace)

36. TicketNetwork re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs

1 through 35 of this Complaint.

12

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 14 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

37. The Attorney General claims that, because TicketNetwork’s online marketplace

may be used by independent third parties to offer to sell tickets that the seller does not yet own

but intends to procure, the marketplace violates New York Executive Law § 63(12) and General

Business Law §§ 349, 350 and 396.

38. Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to sue companies for

“repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”

39. General Business Law § 349 prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct

of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.”

40. General Business Law § 350 prohibits “false advertising in the conduct of any

business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.”

41. General Business Law § 396 prohibits “offer[ing] for sale any merchandise,

commodity, or service, as part of a plan or scheme . . . with the intent, design or purpose not to

sell the merchandise, commodity, or service so advertised.”

42. All of the Attorney General’s claims under both the Executive Law and the

General Business Law seek to hold TicketNetwork liable for the ticket descriptions and conduct

of independent third-party ticket sellers who use the company’s online marketplace. Therefore,

the Attorney General’s claims are barred by the CDA, which directs as a matter of federal law

that providers of online interactive services are not responsible for the content placed on their

services by third parties.

43. Alternatively, even if the Attorney General’s claims were not barred by the CDA,

TicketNetwork’s marketplace does not violate Executive Law § 63(12) or General Business Law

§§ 349, 350 or 396 simply by providing an online forum for ticket sales in which third parties

may offer to sell tickets that the party does not yet own but intends to procure.

13

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 15 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment – Alleged Misrepresentations)

44. TicketNetwork re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs

1 through 35 of this Complaint.

45. The Attorney General claims that TicketNetwork is in violation of Executive Law

§ 63(12) and General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 because it misrepresents to users of its

online marketplace that tickets listed for sale are necessarily already in the seller’s possession at

the time the transaction is processed.

46. On the contrary, TicketNetwork has not misrepresented its online ticket sales

marketplace as claimed by the Attorney General and, therefore, has not violated any of the

statutes cited.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TicketNetwork, Inc. respectfully prays for the following relief:

(1) A judgment declaring that TicketNetwork’s online ticket sales marketplace does
not violate New York Executive Law § 63(12) or General Business Law §§ 349,
350, or 396.

(2) A judgment declaring that TicketNetwork has not misrepresented its online ticket
sales marketplace so as to violate New York Executive Law § 63(12) or General
Business Law §§ 349 or 350.

(3) Any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

14

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 16 of 17
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2018

Dated: September 6, 2018

New York, New York

By: _/s/ Peter C. Harvey________________

Peter C. Harvey
Derek Borchardt
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 336-2000
pcharvey@pbwt.com
dborchardt@pbwt.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff TicketNetwork, Inc.

15

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 17 of 17