A federal judge has ordered the proposed class action against StubHub and its CEO, Eric Baker, into private arbitration, and paused the court case while that process runs.
The ruling came from Judge Jed S. Rakoff in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday (September 14).
It means Louis Sanquini, the New York ticket buyer who brought the case, must take his claims to an arbitrator rather than a courtroom.
Rakoff has not ruled on the substance of Sanquini‘s allegations, which remain untested.
The September 14 order, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here.
StubHub and Baker had asked the court to do one of two things: send the dispute to arbitration, or dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The judge took the first route after hearing arguments from both sides on Friday (September 11).
“Upon full consideration of the briefing, as well as the arguments presented by the parties at oral argument on September 11, 2026, the Court hereby grants the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, stays this case pending completion of the arbitration proceedings, and denies the motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot,” Rakoff‘s order states.
“… the Court hereby grants the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, stays this case pending completion of the arbitration proceedings, and denies the motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot.”
Jed S. Rakoff, US District Judge
That last point is procedural rather than a win for Sanquini: the judge refused the dismissal request only because his arbitration ruling made it moot, and left StubHub free to revive it.
The judge has not yet explained why he sent the case to arbitration. “An Opinion explaining the reasons for this ruling will issue in due course,” Rakoff wrote.
Keven Steinberg, lead counsel for Sanquini, told MBW that the order settles nothing about the allegations over Baker‘s stake in a ticket-resale fund.
“While Judge Rakoff granted the motion to compel and stayed the case pending arbitration, it is significant and telling that the Judge did not rule on the merits of the Andro Capital allegations, he did not dismiss anything, and he did not make any finding about StubHub’s conduct,” Steinberg said.
He said buyers could now bring the same claims against StubHub individually, in bulk.
“The ruling is only the first step. StubHub fought to keep ticket buyers out of court and out of a class action – now it will face those same buyers, one at a time, tens or hundreds of thousands of times over through a contemplated mass arbitration.”
Keven Steinberg, lead counsel for Louis Sanquini
“The ruling is only the first step. StubHub fought to keep ticket buyers out of court and out of a class action – now it will face those same buyers, one at a time, tens or hundreds of thousands of times over through a contemplated mass arbitration,” Steinberg said.
“StubHub got exactly what it asked for. It may come to regret it,” he added.
Sanquini sued StubHub and Baker on July 13, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of the platform’s buyers who received and used their tickets. The suit was filed by Parness Law Firm, PLLC.
His complaint, which can be read in full here, opens with the company’s own pitch to buyers.
“StubHub markets itself to consumers as a neutral ‘marketplace for fans to buy and sell tickets’ – a platform that merely connects individual fans who can no longer use their tickets with other fans who want them,” it states.
The suit sets that against Baker‘s role at Andro Capital, a professional ticket reseller that it says has sold tickets through StubHub since 2008.
Citing the company’s filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the complaint says Baker is a part-owner and managing director of the fund. It further alleges that StubHub agreed in 2024 to refer sellers to Colloquy Capital, an Andro affiliate, for short-term financing to fund bulk ticket buying for resale on the platform.
None of those relationships was disclosed to buyers at the point of purchase, in StubHub‘s consumer-facing marketing, or in its consumer terms of service, the complaint says.
It reads: “Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class purchased tickets on StubHub believing they were buying from individual fans through a neutral marketplace, when in fact StubHub’s own leadership has a direct financial stake in, and StubHub itself helps finance, the large-scale resale operations that supply much of the platform’s inventory.
“Defendants’ failure to disclose this conflict of interest, while affirmatively marketing StubHub as a fan-to-fan marketplace, deceived Plaintiff and the Class and caused them to pay prices, and accept terms, they would not have accepted had the truth been known.”
The complaint sets out four counts: fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation; violation of state consumer-protection statutes, citing New York‘s General Business Law and California‘s unfair competition law; unjust enrichment; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
It says the aggregate amount in controversy across the proposed class exceeds USD $5 million. That is the jurisdictional threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act for a class action to be heard in federal court, not an estimate of what the claims are worth.
The suit also asks the court to force StubHub to disclose material related-party relationships to consumers.
The transaction at the center of the case is a September 2024 purchase of four tickets to a Major League Soccer match between the New York Red Bulls and New York City FC.
Sanquini paid $131.48 for the tickets and $76.34 in service and delivery fees, a total of $207.82, according to the complaint.
The filing says he also bought two tickets to a KISS concert at Madison Square Garden in December 2023, cited as evidence of repeated reliance on the platform’s marketing. He received and used both sets of tickets, and his claims concern pricing and disclosure rather than any failure to deliver.
The proposed class is drawn accordingly: it excludes anyone whose claim arises from a ticket that was never delivered, was canceled, or was invalid. The complaint says those claims are the subject of separate litigation, including a case captioned Moghal v. StubHub in the same court.
Sanquini‘s claims are the ones now heading to arbitration. Rakoff‘s order does not dismiss the proposed class claims, but it puts them on hold while the arbitration runs.
One of the four counts rests on the same contract buyers agree to when they use the platform – the agreement in which StubHub‘s arbitration terms also sit.
“Plaintiff and Class members entered into a User Agreement with StubHub each time they transacted on the platform, which agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” the complaint states.
That contract, StubHub‘s Global User Agreement, states in capital letters at the top that it contains an agreement to arbitrate, and limits users to bringing claims “only on an individual basis” and not as a member of any purported class. Buyers can opt out by mailing a written notice, postmarked within 30 days of first accepting the terms.
Steinberg argued that those terms catch ticket buyers generally, whether or not they are suing.
“Parents buy tickets so their kids can see Taylor Swift or their favorite pop star or cheer on their team at the World Cup – never realizing that buried in the fine print is a clause stripping away their right to go to court or join with other fans. That’s not an accident,” he said.
Baker‘s stake in Andro Capital has also drawn attention in Washington.
On July 24, Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote to Baker demanding answers about his interest in the fund.
Garcia said the committee’s Democrats were investigating whether Baker had manipulated ticket markets for his own benefit. The allegations are unproven.
A StubHub spokesperson told MBW that day: “Eric’s investment in Andro Capital has been disclosed publicly. Andro Capital is a separate company and is one of many vendors we use.
“Stubhub, like many companies, works with vendors to provide additional services for their customers, allowing the StubHub team to focus on its core business. This relationship with Andro Capital makes up only a small fraction of StubHub’s total revenue.”
Monday’s ruling echoes an outcome Spotify secured in the same court earlier this year – on considerably tougher terms for the plaintiff.
On April 30, Judge John G. Koeltl sent a proposed class action over Spotify’s Discovery Mode to arbitration, and dismissed the class claims with prejudice. Rakoff has left Sanquini‘s class claims on the docket for now.
StubHub also faces litigation brought by investors rather than ticket buyers.
An investor filed a securities class action in November 2025 over the company’s $758 million IPO, naming StubHub, Baker, and several of the banks that underwrote the offering.
StubHub declined to comment.Music Business Worldwide
