Modden v. Ticketfly

Background

Thomas Modden bought a Ticketfly ticket for a 2017 concert in New York City. Ticketfly canceled the ticket before the concert, issued a full refund, and terminated Modden’s Ticketfly account. Modden sued in New York state court; the case was later removed to federal court, transferred to California, and dismissed twice with permission to amend. The Third Amended Complaint alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract. Modden represented himself.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. The court generally accepts factual allegations as true at this stage but does not have to accept legal conclusions or unsupported statements.

Invasion of privacy claim

Under California law, an invasion-of-privacy claim requires a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and an egregious invasion of that interest.

Modden alleged that Ticketfly inserted itself into a private matter involving a band member and shared his identifying information with its parent companies, Pandora and Eventbrite. The court found that he did not provide enough facts about what private information was shared or the circumstances of the alleged sharing. The court also found that the allegations did not plausibly show an egregious invasion of privacy. Because the Third Amended Complaint added no factual allegations supporting the required elements, the court dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Breach-of-contract claim

To state a breach-of-contract claim, Modden had to allege a contract, his own performance or an excuse for nonperformance, a breach, and resulting damages. Because he received a refund for the canceled ticket, he claimed damages based on consequences to his musical career from being unable to use Ticketfly and its parent platforms, as well as emotional distress.

The court focused on Modden’s alleged special and consequential damages. It found that his customer-service complaints, which were sent after the ticket and account had been canceled, were too vague to put Ticketfly on notice that he might suffer $5,000,000 in damages. Modden also did not allege that Ticketfly knew or should have known about these special damages when he purchased the ticket and agreed to Ticketfly’s terms. The court therefore dismissed the breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

Despite the more flexible pleading standard that can apply to people representing themselves, the court held that the allegations were insufficient. The court granted Ticketfly’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and dismissed Modden’s complaint with prejudice. Because this was a Rule 12(b)(6) pleading ruling, the court did not decide the underlying claims after a trial or other merits proceeding.