Fortune v. Vivendi Ticketing US

Background

Solomon Fortune bought two tickets through See Tickets’ website. On the page where he selected the tickets, the website displayed the base ticket price and applicable fees separately, but did not display their combined amount. A later checkout page showed a summary of the charges and the cumulative amount due.

Fortune brought this putative class action under Section 25.07 of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. That law requires a ticket platform to disclose the ticket’s total cost, including required fees, before the ticket is selected for purchase. Fortune alleged that displaying the base price first caused consumers to focus on that lower figure, reducing the perceived shock of the higher combined price. He claimed this caused him and other consumers to buy tickets they otherwise would not have bought or to pay more than they otherwise would have paid.

The court had previously dismissed Fortune’s initial complaint without prejudice because it did not adequately allege a constitutional injury, while allowing him to amend. Fortune then filed an amended complaint. See Tickets again moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Fortune lacked standing, had repeated allegations from the initial complaint, had not shown a violation of Section 25.07, and was barred by New York’s voluntary-payment doctrine.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected See Tickets’ standing argument. It held that Fortune plausibly alleged a concrete injury because he claimed the pricing structure induced him to purchase tickets he otherwise would not have purchased. The court also said Fortune plausibly alleged injury under an alternative theory: that the pricing structure increased the market price and caused him to pay more for the tickets.

The court further held that the amended complaint relied on a different theory from the initial complaint. Fortune was not alleging only that See Tickets disclosed pricing information gradually. Instead, he alleged that See Tickets disclosed the separate components of the price but failed to disclose their combined total on the ticket-selection page.

The court interpreted the word total in Section 25.07 to require an all-in, cumulative price, rather than merely a list of the base price and each fee. It reasoned that the statute distinguishes between the total price and the separate components of that price, so treating a list of components as the total would make that distinction ineffective.

The court also rejected See Tickets’ argument that the voluntary-payment doctrine barred the claim. That doctrine generally limits recovery of payments made with full knowledge of the relevant facts, but the court explained that it does not apply when the claim is based on the defendant’s failure to make a full disclosure. Fortune’s claim was based on the alleged failure to disclose the total price at the ticket-selection stage.

Ruling and next steps

Judge John P. Cronan denied See Tickets’ motion to dismiss Fortune’s amended complaint. The ruling did not determine whether See Tickets is ultimately liable or certify a class. The court ordered See Tickets to file an answer within fourteen days and ordered the parties to appear for an initial pretrial conference on August 14, 2026. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 26.