Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

From s.144 of the Equality Act:
Contracting out
(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

@Discovereads your response to me makes no sense in the context in which you made your comment.

(By way of reminder, this was your post about U.K. law:

ChazsBrilliantAttitude
No contract is under U.K. law. It’s not a thing. Scots law is different from English law so a contract is subject to either English law or Scottish law but never U.K. law.

Discovereads
MoD international contracts are)

That’s why it is for a court to decide. Just like they will consider the conflicts of law point where legislation and precedent has resisted exclusive jurisdiction clauses in business to consumer contracts if such clauses would make it onerous for the consumer to obtain a remedy etc.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude
Do you have any evidence Eventbrite had seen the content beyond the description which did indicate a discussion of potentially protected beliefs was taking place?
How would anyone know that? And what the OP posted to Eventbrite has long since been deleted so we cannot speculate as to whether what she posted there did or did not consist of only protected beliefs.

Except
Do you have any evidence Eventbrite had seen the content beyond the description which did indicate a discussion of potentially protected beliefs was taking place?

They can’t identify out of the Equality Act 2010. Ultimately a court will determine the facts but irrespective of what they put in their T&C they can’t refuse to provide a service because someone is expressing a protected belief. Just like they couldn’t refuse to provide a service on the grounds of race or religion.

Except,

• none of us have seen the content in question so cannot speculate whether any court would rule it as protected or not
• the T&Cs give Eventbrite sole discretion so the court would have to also find their judgement to be severely lacking & prejudicial- not merely open to differing interpretation or perception.
• the OP stated part of the motivation was due to complaints they received from other users, so it’s not the content alone, but a public reaction to the content.
• the grounds for removal specified under the hateful content section are broad and includes even “disparaging” content towards an individual or group on the basis of gender identity. Disparaging is a very low bar to meet.

They withdrew their service on the grounds of hateful etc. content. The content in question was the expression of protected beliefs. So it is a straightforward argument that their withdrawal of the service was motivated by the expression of protected beliefs. If they had cancelled without comment it would have been more challenging.

Im not a TRA.
An alleged attempt to sabotage is not banning an event.

Theres nothing disingenuous about being factual instead of giving in to exaggeration and allegations of sabotage.

Especially since this thread is about legal action, it’s best to stick to the facts.

its important to understand as consumers whether we are protected under our own country’s laws or not

This isn’t a yes/no question when it comes to cross-border digital services and content. The answer is “it depends” and probably always will be.

Disingenuous.
Pulling the ticket sales was a clearly an attempt to sabotage the event.

WHY ARE TRAS LIKE THIS?

Yes, especially over this specific issue. Given that the US is way more captured than England and many of these online companies are US based.

If we can't exercise the rights we are winning in this country to hold a gender critical belief, in the context of using an American based company, then we need to bloody well know that.

@MoirasSaggyBundles

“There might be grounds to apply for any claim/any arbitration to be heard in the UK, as your initial contact was made through the UK part of their business, and it may well have been a UK based operator who pulled the plug on you.”

I afraid that ground to file in U.K. has been sacrificed already

Initial contact seems to have been through Twitter.
From “Eventbrite Trust & Safety” at 03:14 in the morning/ 7:14pm in SanFran time.

Guessing it’s from Eventbrite proper, in the US, or would it not have said “EventbriteUK Trust & Safety”?

OPs response back is to “Eventbrite” not “EventbriteUK” as well.

In addition, OP reported (on her petition off MN. So cannot link)
“However, on 2nd November its legal counsel based in California ‘reached out’ to me after reading an article I had written in The Critic.

We met for remote discussions on 3rd November and I was assured that by 7th November I would be given ‘timescales’ for a ‘second review’ of my event – the first review having confirmed it promoted violent and hateful content etc.”

Will be interested in what you & your DH think as well.

Given the current news reports that Iran appears to have sent it's security forces to deal with two UK citizens on UK soil, then the question of whose laws apply where would seem to quite a hot topic at the moment.

That's before we consider that Russia sent it's security forces into the UK which resulted in the death of a UK citizen and fuck all happened.

Then there's the murder of Yvonne Fletcher.

"Can't happen here" are famous last words.

If it is right then it is a direct threat to our democracy.

This is the question I want answered, I think it’s important to understand as consumers whether we are protected under our own country’s laws or not. If not, then yeah I want to know and that’s why I’ll contribute. Best wishes @Spero

@MoirasSaggyBundles

I think OP can still opt out of binding Arbitration and go straight to small claims court, county of San Fran per this clause:

”9d) 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.”

I haven’t even gotten into the Indemnification or Liability sections of the T&Cs but they are very robust too and would be yet more bad news for OP.

I'm your worst nightmare - a lesbian with a pizza!

I'll get my coat...

Eventbrite is a digital platform that does tickets sales on behalf of event organisers in return for a commission. Refusing to be the ticket seller for an event, isn’t banning said event. No ticket seller has the authority to ban an event.

Removing an event and refunding all tickets sold is creating an obstacle to event organisers, but it’s not banning the event.

The event is still going forward from what I can see.

Im disability retired so those days are in the past.

My reading of Discoveread's analysis of the governing law and the process is that they are probably correct. The UK falls into "any other jurisdiction" under the contract, and the T&C are clearly state that:

If you are a User located in any other jurisdiction, you are contracting with Eventbrite, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 535 Mission Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Reg. No. 4742147 ("Eventbrite US").

There's also a clear warning to be aware of the binding Arbitration clause in the case of disputes, such that any disputes can only be settled by arbitration (to take place in SF) or a small claim. Starting the small claim in the UK is highly likely to be opposed by Eventbrite on the basis of non jurisdiction, as you usually need to start a claim in country whose laws govern the contract. The contract stupulates:

These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of laws rules. These laws will apply no matter where in the world you live. But if you live outside of the United States, you may be entitled to the protection of the mandatory consumer protection provisions of your local consumer protection law. Eventbrite is based in San Francisco, California, and any legal action against Eventbrite related to our Services and that is not precluded by the arbitration provisions in these Terms must be filed and take place in San Francisco. Thus, for any actions not subject to arbitration, you and Eventbrite agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the federal or state courts (as applicable) located in San Francisco County, California.

I think it might be too late to opt out of the Arbitration, that's how I read it just skimming through the terms.

That doesn't mean any claim is dead in the water. There might be grounds to apply for any claim/any arbitration to be heard in the UK, as your initial contact was made through the UK part of their business, and it may well have been a UK based operator who pulled the plug on you. And they will still need to justify pulling your event under the discretionary terms of the contract, which as I mentioned above, may have been exercised without any rational basis. And yes, your lawyers need to check how UK CPA and EqA laws may come into play.

My DH does a lot of this type of work for clients engaging in cross jurisdictional legal agreements, I will ask him tonight what he thinks.

Eventbrite literally gets its funding from events.

No idea why you are still here, haven't you got important international arms to sell?

I just donated because I had to spend part of today meeting with the new EDI lead in my organisation, because some colleagues have apparently complained about the fact that I signed a letter more than a year ago. There were complaints at the time which were dismissed, but truly, the process is the punishment.

I found where to donate using the Twitter link

mobile.twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1589684471527182336

The more legal successes there are, the easier it is to stand fast in the face of idiotic complaints. Lots more digging needed!

No one has banned or tried to ban the book launch.

Your recap that you have ascribed as being my “analysis” is 100% a fabrication that bears absolutely no resemblance to anything I have said. I refute it fully and utterly. That “analysis” is the product of your own imagination.

With you being a barrister, I had expected a bit of integrity and honesty in our conversation.