The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) has revealed in a Media Release that the Federal Court of Australia (“the Court”) has handed down a decision where ticket reseller viagogo AG (“viagogo”) has been ordered to pay a penalty of $7 million for “breaching the Australian Consumer Law ('ACL') by making false or misleading representations when reselling tickets for live music and sports event”.
On 18 April 2019, in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v viagogo AG  FCA 544, Federal Court Justice Stephen Burley found that viagogo had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by acting in a way liable to mislead the public when reselling entertainment, music and live sport event tickets, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law. According to a Sydney Morning Herald article, viagogo has sold tickets to events such including Queen and Adam Lambert, The Book of Mormon musical, the Australian Open tennis tournament, and Ashes cricket matches.
The Sydney Morning Herald said:
"It was also not clear to consumers that "booking fees" of up to 28 per cent of the ticket price applied, on top of advertised prices, or that claims about the scarcity of tickets remaining for an event did not refer to the venue as a whole but only to tickets available through the reseller's website.
The court found viagogo had suggested it was an official ticket seller by using the phrase "Buy Now, viagogo Official Site" in sponsored advertisements on Google that directed consumers to the Switzerland-based ticket reseller's Australian website, which was its "virtual shopfront in Australia"."
Justice Burley ordered viagogo to pay a total of $7 million for four separate breaches of the ACL, covering representations about the nature of its services, the quantity of tickets available and its pricing. He also ordered viagogo to pay the ACCC's legal costs and granted an injunction restraining viagogo from engaging in the impugned conduct, as well as an Order for viagogo to participate in a Compliance Program .
At para 58 of the judgment Burley J said viagogo had misrepresented that:
His Honour also noted it was a “very serious misrepresentation, because it fundamentally misled consumers as to the nature of viagogo's business in order to attract consumers”. In fact, viagogo was not an official seller but provided “… a platform for third parties to sell tickets second hand.”
The Court found viagogo's use of phrases such as “only a few tickets left” was deceptive because they related to tickets available through its own website — not the overall availability of tickets to an event. His Honour said at [para 67] those phrases:
Burley J also said that consumers drawn in by the misleading Google advertisement were “exposed to further misleading conduct” on the viagogo website. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the ACCC had submitted the penalty should be between $12.1 million and $13.4 million, while viagogo contended it should not be more than $3 million.
In a statement ACCC Chair, Rod Sims said of the Court’s decision:
Speaking to ABC News, viagogo said the platform had been “overhauled since the court's initial decision". A spokesperson for the company said the changes included consultation with consumer protection regulators in “a number of countries … viagogo is committed to providing an important service to consumers that use our platform”.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v viagogo AG (No 3)  FCA 1423 (2 October 2020)
FREE legislation news, delivered weekly.
Sign up now.#WeLoveLegislation Tweets
NEW information resources - great for training.