Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

[Spero]

On Oct 27 2022, Eventbrite pulled my book launch event for 'Transpositions - personal journeys into gender criticism'. This was a collection of stories from men and women about how they got involved in issues around sex and gender. Some of you may have contributed.

They told me that I was promoting 'violent and dangerous' content. I asked them to explain themselves. They haven't. So I am taking them to court for unlawful discrimination against my gender critical belief.

I wrote about it in the Critic here thecritic.co.uk/why-is-eventbrite-obstructing-my-book-launch/

I am hoping that some people may feel able to do a spot of gardening. I know its dark and miserable and not the best weather for gardening, but I think this could be quite an important piece of digging. There are some really important questions to ask about how private companies, based overseas are allowed to dictate what we think or say.

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.

@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.

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.

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

WHY ARE TRAS LIKE THIS?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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)

There is no need to speculate. I can assure you that there was no content which was remotely 'hateful' 'dangerous' or 'violent'. I know because I wrote it. The event was up for at least a week until a number of people on Twitter complained about it, interestingly only after I announced that Graham Linehan would be speaking at the event.

An interesting update. Eventbrite's counsel emailed me at half past midnight our time this morning to offer a 'review' of my event after consultation with 'several barristers'.

If this matter was really so cut and dried from their T and Cs as is suggested then I remain surprised they are continuing to engage with me in this way. I have replied, asking that all communication is now with my solicitors.

I will keep you posted. And thank you again for all those who have donated.

Sorry, should have said, the 'review' will be completed by November 16th. If they simply intend to rely on their T and C, I do not see why they need this long. So I will hope that they are actually engaging with the issues here and can see the dangerous hole they are potentially digging by their previous unthinking 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

From what I can see the Equality Act protects someone who is in the UK and is discriminated against in the UK, regardless of what any contract says and regardless of the jurisdiction of the contract.

Hi @Spero just thought I'd let you know, I went on to The Conway Hall, your event isn't listed. Is that because it's sold out? I hope they haven't cancelled it!

O dear, will check tomorrow. If they have pulled it, I will be taking them to court as well.

Really hope they haven't, I went on Conway Hall website and looked through all the listings up to end of December, I really hope I'm looking in the wrong place or something.

@eurochick
As a reminder, here is the full exchange (with additional notes added in parentheses)

ChazsBrilliantAttitude
How many of those contracts were governed by U.K. law? (Those contracts refers to international contracts, plural)

Discovereads
Most of them. ( thinking about international contracts plural we had that were governed by foreign laws, usually US law or that fell under some combination of U.K. laws)

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 (was under the impression still talking about international contracts as a plural whole and not a hypothetical contract in the singular. Besides, there are UK laws that apply U.K. wide to all countries within the U.K.. So U.K. law is “a thing” in the same way that EU law is a thing in that it applies EU-wide despite there also being different national laws within different member nations of the EU)

eurochick · Today 14:42
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. (You also switched to contract in the singular. Then wrote that I’d said a contract in the singular would cite “U.K. law” as the governing law….which I had definitely not said, I’d only been talking and thinking about international contracts as a plural whole and whether they fell under U.K. laws vs foreign laws)

So I responded to you:
Discovereads
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 international contracts plural 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.

Hope my response with added notes makes more sense to you now.

This wasn't a cross border digital service. They were selling tickets for an event in England. If I buy a toaster from John Lewis I am not engaging in a cross border digital service just because the receipt comes via AWS servers in the US.

Interestingly a lot of barristers are now coming out d the woodwork and messaging me - already have offer of pro Bono representation which would be great.

And at least one KC is suggesting my EA claim won't be impacted by jurisdictional issues

That sounds like good news.
Pro Bono too!

DH was optimistic. Basically, a non- contractual claim can be brought in England & Wales under the EqA, and the contractual T&C won't trump that claim if there is evidence of discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic. The initial hurdle will be seeking permission to serve out of jurisdiction by passing the 3 stage test under CPR 6.37 - getting your evidence together to show a good arguable case is key (and beating the very tight limitation period).

Eventbrite's obvious defence is that there was no discrimination under EqA and that the T&C applied and were invoked correctly. If they succeed, you go back to a claim under a contract with a US jurisdiction clause, and arguing Eventbrite incorrectly/unreasonably invoked their discretionary contractual rights under the community guidelines.

You need advice about simultaneously bringing a claim under both contract and the EqA. There will be issues as to jurisdiction on the former. You would probably want to apply for an order to stay the contractual element while the EqA element is adjudicated.