Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

To be fair to DR, your thread is being constantly bumped by them so maybe that’s actually a better contribution than my few spuds 🤷🏻

The thought that a book launch, of a book about British citizens' actual experiences is so potentially dangerous that it needs to be banned does make me laugh. I mean, there may be lesbians in chairs with pizza there. As we all know this is one of the most dangerous lethal weapons that the UK possesses.

Nor is there - as far as I know - a 'PayPal UK'.

www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full

seems a good starting point.

I'm quite excited now I realise US law applies in the UK - my .22 Saturday Night Special is already being packed as I write.

(Naughty Jane !)

It disappears into the ether and is never mentioned again if previous non-starting crowdfunders are anything to go by.

OMG don’t mention the $100,000 that Keffals funded to pay their rent, increase the cat boy farms, take down KF and other take major legal action and has so far just disappeared.

Yes PayPal did restore services. I agree a fuss should definitely be made and can work wonders. I think it’s awful if companies are permitted discriminate and it needs to be drawn to people’s attention 100%

@Spero
But there is an Eventbrite UK.

I’ll think you will find that Eventbrite U.K. is limited to a domain name for the purpose of accounting U.K. origin revenues & profits, and a business dba name & address for registering with the Companies House to file accounts and tax returns to HMRC. According to their T&Cs, Eventbrite U.K. is not a contracting entity unlike Eventbrite Argentina and Eventbrite Brazil:

T&Cs 1.2
“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").”…
”Note that irrespective of the entity with which you are contracting for purposes of Eventbrite Payment Processing, all other Services offered by Eventbrite are offered through either your local entity in the case of Eventbrite Argentina or Eventbrite Brazil, or Eventbrite US.”

But do the book launches identify as rocket launches?

Good luck spero

💐💐💐

I don’t know enough about the law to know whether or not Discovereads has a point but isn’t it possible that they do? When Toby Young was talking about being refused service by PayPal and the possibility of suing for discrimination, he definitely said something about there being difficulties due to PayPal being overseas.

But the question was deliberately vague I think.

And all of your answers have been very wrong vague huh.

Arse meet plate 🍿

I was asked in regards to international contracts:
How many of those contracts were governed by U.K. law?
and responded
Most of them (thinking about contracts we had that were governed by foreign laws, usually US law)

As in most of the international contracts (plural) I worked with fell under U.K. laws as compared to another nations’ laws.

I wasn’t saying that a contract (singular) would state within it that it is “governed by U.K. law.” Obviously, when you look through a stack of MoD contracts, they would individually specify whether the governing laws were English, Scots, etc.usually depending on place of performance or origin of supplier.

And much of what we do is governed by U.K. wide laws because we are the U.K. Government. We are not a business in England or Scotland or Wales.

But the question was deliberately vague I think.

I dug. What happens to the money if Eventbrite accountants realise that you have the funds and have the law on your side and go into reverse ferret, offering apology and more?

Can I just check, when we say ‘dig’ we mean in allotment with some £$€¥ not actually dig a hole and jump in and keep digging a la Sparple Law demo’d here?

Hi

Book launches are not rocket launches @Discovereads

Hope that helps.

Anyway, Spero is right. If it is the case that overseas companies can discriminate against groups of people with protected characteristics, that is something that needs to be addressed. What would prevent them from discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation or disability or race? It is the thin edge of a very nasty wedge.

If you were to go after them, possibly the route to go down could include the arbitrary application of their "discretion". To make sense of this clause prior to exchange of contracts, I would have thought there needs to be some semblance of implied agreement that this clause would be invoked honestly, genuinely, rationally and in good faith by Eventbrite, as opposed to being invoked on a whim. And that both the process of invoking that clause and the outcome fulfilled these criteria. Looking at their record of whom else they have hosted on their platform might be useful (including GC events - I'm sure I booked through them for WPUK back in the day). Finding out whether the person who pulled the plug actually understood your content or made a knee jerk decision based on something else would be useful.

Eventbrite are sneaky fuckers, though, advertising their services under a co.uk website, then using contractual terms governed by US laws. Most ordinary users will not be aware of this. Exposing this itself to the wider public would be a good thing.

Who ever was on Zoom with you was most probably a dispute resolution person from the customer department per 9(a) of the T&Cs. I’m sure they have tons of legal counsel staff on tap and depending how you go, arbitration or small claims, will assign legal counsel accordingly.

Why would they have done the Zoom? To demonstrate for the record that they are not discriminating against you as a person for your beliefs, but that the decision to remove was based purely on the content you posted. You haven’t been banned from Eventbrite have you? You still have an account, yes? It looks good on them to have “attempted” alternate dispute resolution if this does proceed into arbitration or court.

I'm not a fan of this government, but credit where it's due. Removing that section removes the potential for some awful unintended harmful consequences.

As a lawyer with more than 20 years of experience of international disputes I have yet to see a contract that has "UK law" as the governing law that wasn't either drafted by a lay person or a trainee. Scots law, NI law and the law of England and Wales differ in a number of pretty significant respects. I'm somewhat concerned for the MoD if what Discovereads says is correct.

*appear to be

Laws are trending towards requiring such platforms to better monitor and remove offensive content under a precautionary principle.

There does appear attacks on free speech at the moment from multiple directions. Thankfully the Tories have indicated that they are going to ditch the “lawful but harmful” section of the Online Safety Bill.