Arguments swirl over fairness of Ticketmaster settlement

, The National Law Journal


Eight lawyers representing more than a dozen of the nearly 100 objectors to a consumer class action settlement with Ticketmaster urged a Los Angeles judge on July 24 to reject the deal, which they called the latest example of paying cash to the lawyers while the class members make do with coupons.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    Today's plaintiffs' bar comprises a growing parasitic element that stands in utter disgrace relative to a past tradition of true professionalism. The shamelessly self-serving litigiousness of such bottom-feeders now borders on treasonous, and a day of reckoning when they could well be subject to very harsh treatment by the tax- and consumer price-paying public may not be far off.

  • Sunny days ahead . . .

    And some lawyers still scratch their heads and wonder why the public thinks thinks this noble "profession" is populated with a bunch of greedy sharks with no moral backbone! Wouldn't you just LOVE a coupon that forces you to do business with an entity you detest? Personally, I think I'd set it on fire. Just cut me a check and save everyone the time and hassle - I never want to do business with you again, why should you continue to benefit from me? "Blonder said that the objectors, who represent a small percentage of the estimated 50 million people in the class, have failed to prove the deal is unfair. "Clearly, 100 out of 50 million is a de minimis number," he said." Buddy, did you ever think that most people aren't going to make a federal case out of a $1.50 coupon? Especially when they see that no one (not even plaintiff's "counsel") appears to be on their side? In this day of massive unemployment, foreclosures, etc. everyone's just trying to keep afloat. And of course, WHY should the defendant be FORCED to disclose the name of the charities who will benefit under cy pres? TOTALLY UNREASONABLE (sarcasm.) Puzzling, why do people who are totally unrelated to this action get cash and the actual plaintiffs get coupons? Also, does the defendant think they can generate good will by donating to charities without disclosing that THEY WERE FORCED TO? And of course, the lawyers deserve every penny of the 16.5 million in fees - they've earned it - LOL!! I hope the judge will realize how absurd this is and send this back. Of course, defendant's attorney Gail Lees would say "The plaintiffs faced a very serious and real risk of a loss at trial." Yeah, right. She better hope this isn't a jury trial - LOL

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202564274992

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.