Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

To be clearer the term European Union has not been defined at all, but EU has been defined as including the UK. It would appear nonsensical if the EU consumer amendments did not apply to all those that fell into the definition of EU so I think there would be a strong argument that User in the European Union must include anyone within the definition of the term EU (otherwise these aren't the EU consumer amendments).

@MoirasSaggyBundles

The main T&C define Users as including Organisers

"1.2 Who's Who. When these Terms use the term "Organiser," we mean event creators using the Services to create events displayed on the Services for consumers using our Services (a) to consume information about or attend Events ("Consumers"), or (b) for any other reason. Organisers, Consumers and third parties using our Services are all referred to in these Terms collectively as "Users," "you" or "your.""

The EU Consumer amendments including the governing law clause provision apply to Users
"If you are a User located in the European Union who is an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside of your trade, business, craft or profession while using the Services, then the following changes to the Terms of Service apply to you:"

The challenge is that EB have defined EU as including the UK but not European Union but then make reference to EU country in the governing law provision

I haven’t misrepresented anything. You need to work on being more specific when youre communicating using terminology. You can’t swap this for that willy nilly and saying vague statements without causing confusion. And what’s childish is instead of saying, oh I wasn’t clear….let me rephrase…you decide to hurl insults and make snarky remarks at me.

Youve made plenty of “basic errors” of your own.

It's also interesting that you didn't pick up on the EU consumer provisions point which may well change the governing law.

You didn’t pick up on lots that I picked up on. Is that “interesting” too?

I don’t want to derail the thread but youre asking for it.
International agreements are nothing like international contracts.

International contracts are the buying/selling of goods or services in return for compensation across international borders. (Note: goods can be tangible or intangible)

International Agreements involve no buying/selling of goods or services in return for compensation.

International Agreements consist of things like treaties, free trade agreements, double taxation agreements, memorandums of understanding, memorandums of agreement, status of forces agreements, foreign aid agreements, research and development cooperative agreements, extradition and judicial agreements, intelligence and data sharing agreements, defence cooperative agreements, etc

International agreements often form the framework within which international contracts can be legally negotiated, issued and enforced.

Stop childishly misrepresenting what has been going on. It's embarrassing for you. I haven't tricked you or misled you - you've just made basic errors that I wouldn't expect from an experienced lawyer. It's also interesting that you didn't pick up on the EU consumer provisions point which may well change the governing law.

It's not surprising that there might be such carve outs given the provisions of the recast Brussels Regulation and the Lugarno Convention

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude I think those clauses relate to consumer protection legislation that cannot be overriden by T&C. I think the EU amendments referred to were incorporated into English Law under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That Act distinguishes between "traders" and "consumers". I think the purpose of defaulting to this legislation would be to protect ticket buyers who are buying physical goods (i.e. a ticket) rather than organisers like Spero are buying a service, but I might be wrong, I'll have a read through some guidance and see what I can find.

This was what Chaz originally posted to me in a disparaging manner.
Find barrel, scape bottom of barrel - claim international agreements involving a department of the state is relevant to a dispute between private persons.

Chaz chose to write “dispute between two private persons” which usually is how one refers to two (natural) people having a private disagreement, as in no contract is in existence. Normally you’d describe the OPs situation as a “contract dispute between two parties”

Governments are legal persons too btw..so, if he had really meant to use just “person” as shorthand for all the “legal persons” in his sentence then why didn’t he say “person” instead of “Dept of state?” And he’s gone and substituted international agreements for international contracts (again) which are two very different things not at all comparable or interchangeable just to add to the general vagueness and sow confusion.

So I question “person” being applied to Eventbrite US and he then pretends he said “legal person” and goes ha ha gotcha.

So that’s what Chaz does, he writes something vague and when I don’t decipher it quite right he pretends he said something entirely different.

@Discovereads
So no substantive point to make about the use of "contract" and "agreement" in this context, just an attempt to score points.

Except point out that the EU provisions (where EU expressly is defined as including the UK) appear to substitute English law as the governing law provided the "an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside of your trade, business, craft or profession" test is met.

That might be vaguely helpful to the OP

Even I know that, and I did one law module as part of my accountancy qualification

Jurisdiction is an issue for this as Eventbrite is US defendant and it’s a cyberspace/digital services type of contract. The U.K. court would have to first agree it has jurisdiction over Eventbrite for a EqA discrimination case and then also when considering choice of law agree to apply the U.K. Eq A as opposed to the US Civil Rights Act (which would result in different outcomes unless CA law has something). Then even if OP proves discrimination, and a U.K. court rules in OPs favour, there is still the question of enforcement of its ruling in the US.

Every contract is an agreement, but not every agreement is a contract. So they shouldn’t be used interchangeably.

It’s the same type of nitpicking potshots that Chaz has done to me and I said it to illustrate what he’s been doing. And I’m not also going “don’t believe a word chaz says because he didn’t even know the difference between a contract and an agreement!” Like he has done to me. Its shit like that which is frustrating and counterproductive.

Ivd posted loads of helpful information on this thread. From the T&Cs with a contract law analysis that has been confirmed as right by posters who know what they’re talking about as opposed to posters who seem to just enjoy smirking, insulting me and calling me names while doing nothing useful at all.

@Spero
Hasn't the jurisdiction clause been superseded by the EU provisions?

"27.2 EEA, Swiss and UK Users. If you are a User located in the European Economic Area ("EEA"), Switzerland or the United Kingdom (together, "EU") who is an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside of your trade, business, craft or profession while using the Services, then the following EU Amendments available here apply to you. If you are an Organiser and process personal data of EU event attendees, you are a data controller with respect to your event attendees' personal data and Eventbrite will act as a data processor. With respect to EU personal data that an Organiser holds as a data controller, the Data Processing Addendum for Organisers located here is incorporated into these Terms."

www.eventbrite.co.uk/support/articles/en_US/Troubleshooting/eventbrite-terms-of-service?lg=en_GB

"Section 23 is amended such that the law of the EU country in which you reside applies, excluding the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)"

www.eventbrite.co.uk/support/articles/en_US/Troubleshooting/eu-consumer-amendments?lg=en_GB

The UK is expressly included in the defined term EU

Am I missing something obvious? Are they arguing it's trade etc. because it's a book launch?

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude
I admire your tenacity and patience. Apparently you're asking trick questions now!

@MoirasSaggyBundles
Thanks for the clarity you are bringing (and I love the username).

@Spero
I'm so glad to hear that tickets have sold out.
This is a really important case, for all the reasons you have mentioned. I'm not in a position to help right now but I'll be planting a little seed in your allotment in a week or so.

@Discovereads
You tell off @ChazsBrilliantAttitude for using "contract" and "agreement" interchangeably. But surely a contract is an agreement? Not all contracts are legally enforceable, I would imagine, but every contract must be an agreement.

I know that. But question is what service were they providing in England?

The service consisted of having a webpage hosted in CA that the OP accessed and posted her event to, ticket payments were then processed by a subsidiary in ROI. We need to nail down place of performance.

Does Eventbrite provide services to the UK public and those who have protected characteristics within the UK public? Yes or no?

And if they say no, then how do they explain that they advertise tickets to the UK public through a co.uk domain, platform the events of UK event organisers and actually sell tickets to people in the UK?

Bless

It's not a vendetta to point out that you are making basic legal errors. If you are posting so quickly that you are making these sort of mistakes then how reliable is the advice you are giving the OP.

I have already pointed out that the conflict of law arguments around exclusive jurisdiction clauses in consumer contracts have considered the impact on the consumer of making it onerous to obtain a remedy. This was the case with EU law prior to Brexit and similar provisions are seen in the Consumer Protection Act in relation to some statutory protections.

Does Eventbrite provide services to the UK public and those who have protected characteristics within the UK public? Yes or no?

If yes, then they are a service provider for the purposes of the EqA and subject to its provisions.

To argue otherwise would basically provide a loophole for any corporate entity to simply register their business in a different jurisdiction and then discriminate away whilst doing business here.

There doesn't need to be a contract or indeed for money to change hands for EqA to apply. It applies to charities, schools etc. It applies to all suppliers of services to people in our jurisdiction.

@MoirasSaggyBundles
Oh, and by the way, I stated yesterday that it was too late to withdraw from the Arbitration clause and you said it wasn't. Now you've actually read it, you've changed your mind and agree with me.

No, I haven’t changed my mind. While it is too late to opt out under 9(l), there is no time limit for the OP to avoid Arbitration under 9(d). I didn’t disagree with you on 9(l) at all. When you said it was too late, I posted to you that I think the OP can still get out of Arbitration per 9(d) and go straight to small claims court:

d) Exceptions.
Notwithstanding this Agreement to arbitrate, either party may (i) bring an action on an individual basis in small claims court (to the extent the applicable claim qualifies); or (ii) bring enforcement actions, validity determinations or claims arising from or relating to theft, piracy or unauthorised use of intellectual property in state or federal court in the U.S. Patent or Trademark Office to protect its Intellectual Property Rights ("Intellectual Property Rights" means patents, copyrights, moral rights, trademarks, and trade secrets, but not privacy or publicity rights). In addition, the portion of any dispute or complaint relating to our participation in the US-EU or US-Swiss Privacy Shield Frameworks is subject to the Dispute Resolution section of our Privacy Policy before being subject to this Section.

You can't contract out of the Equality Act
s144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

So, you really think that Eventbrite will wish to argue that they can supply services into England but are not bound by statutory discrimination law when supplying those services.

You know I wrote that in a hurry I response to your private dispute comment. You seem to just want to post trick irrelevant vagaries & misleading questions to catch me out,

Youve not posted a single bit of advice that is helpful to the OP

You seem to only be on this thread to take pot shots at me. You’ve not taken pot shots at anyone else despite many other glaring errors. Ie the comparison of this to buying a toaster at John Lewis. Not a peep from you on that slagging off that poster.

I would like to suggest you take your personal vendetta elsewhere. I’m not here to get into a bun fight with you about you being vague and me misunderstanding what the heck you were trying to say.

I’m here to read T&Cs, look up laws and discuss the legal side of OPs situation with others to her benefit. And I still stand by my initial gut feeling of not being optimistic. It sounds like an expensive uphill battle with little chance of success imho. That doesn’t make me the enemy.

US Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone in US federal law. Eventbrite US is a US company that hosted OPs publication of an event and operated as her ticket seller on their digital platform.

Wouldn’t the court have to consider any potential conflicts of law and their jurisdiction when looking at a case claiming that they refused service to the OP for discriminatory reasons? Especially since the OP signed a services contract stating that the applicable laws and jurisdiction for those services would be in the US & CA? And the U.K. EqA itself under “Territorial extent and application” states in para 15….”In relation to the non-work provisions, the Act is again generally silent on territorial application, leaving it to the courts to determine whether the law applies.”

There is bound to be a discussion of does U.K. EqA apply to a U.S. company operating in the US as ticket sellers over a digital platform on behalf of organisers in the U.K. under service contracts?

In the US the right to refuse service is limited by the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, so cannot be discriminatory and refuse service based on:

Race or color
National origin or citizenship status
Religion or creed
Sex
Age
Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
Veteran status

The above is what I remembered earlier in the thread. Political belief is not protected. However, California law may have added belief or political affiliation to this list…will need to check. If California law does include belief or political affiliation, then won’t be a conflict of law question because they will essentially mirror each other on this question.

Yes, the claim for breach of contract she says she is pursuing in her article. Maybe don't be so quick to call people stupid.

As for the other aprroach, she's just as entitled to believe that gay people go to hell, but no one can be forced to sell tickets to that event.

Here is an example brought under the EqA which failed:

"If it is impossible or impracticable to operate a policy which is not indirectly discriminatory, for example where there is a conflict between two protected characteristics, the best way forward may well be to lawfully indirectly discriminate against one of these groups.

Indeed, in a case decided in late June, the belief that gender is immutable was (here too) held to be a protected philosophical belief, but the employer’s indirectly discriminatory policy requiring the employee to use transgender persons’ preferred pronouns at work was deemed justified."

Here is an another example:
www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/was-a-doctor-who-was-dismissed-for-refusing-to-use-transgender-service-users-preferred-pronouns-discriminated-against/

So, for example, an employer can insist people use preferred pronouns, and GC people can lump it or leave.

Yes, @Discovereads the pertinent word being AND. The defence will be no breach of obligation under EqA AND that the situation Spero found herself in was a matter of contract alone. AND if successful, the matter THEN falls to a claim in contract.

Dadjoke is completely conflating the two causes of action and what rights and obligations are at play under each. What is being suggested above by Dadjoke is that Eventbrite's obligations and duty of care under EqA, as a service provider, not only apply to Spero as a service user, but to all and sundry, service user or not because they have community standards in their T&C. I'm sure corporate America will thank Eventbrite for seeking to set a precedent of an extra-statutory, extra-contractual duty of care in a foreign jurisdiction.

Spero originally said she wanted to bring claims in both contract and the EqA which is why I advised to get advice because of the jurisdictional issues surrounding the contractual claim. She's subsequently suggested she's probably going for a Part 8 declaration on the EqA alone, so her course of action supersedes my advice about a dual claim. If Dadjoke doesn't understand that, maybe he can refrain from posting nonsense.

Oh, and by the way, I stated yesterday that it was too late to withdraw from the Arbitration clause and you said it wasn't. Now you've actually read it, you've changed your mind and agree with me. Perhaps instead of nitpicking at other posters, you can just leave this thread to those who actually want to help Spero.