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.

I think this is an important issue but requires analysis of whether @Spero can be deemed to be "a consumer" for the purposes of the contract. If you look at the T&C, she's classed as an "organiser". As I understand it, the contract was to provide her with a platform to advertise her event and tickets to be sold through it, but she's not the person buying the tickets. There's a different set of contractual clauses for ticket buyers, and IIRC, the contracting party on Eventbrite's side is a Rep of Ireland entity. It's a different contractual relationship for ticket buyers than the relationship Spero has from my reading.

Thanks, very helpful. PB barrister also raises interesting point - didn't realise this

Yes, I think a part 8 application on the q of whether there was EqA discrimination is a better road to go down than the contract route at this point.

Here's a left field question: could your 85 ticket holders have grounds for an EqA claim also, on the basis of direct or indirect discrimination? Eg, if in evidence Eventbrite were told that not only you but everyone buying a ticket is an evil Terf, and they gave equal weight to both in the decision to pull the plug? I don't know how indirect discrimination works if there is an assumption of a characteristic (only GC believers would buy a ticket) as opposed to knowledge of one.

Sometimes, it doesn't matter if you are not even likely to win.

Sometimes, it matters that you stand up & fight.

I'd love to garden a little, it's to rainy outside for me to do much today but I don't know where the planter is.

OP’s twitter is a good place to start.

mobile.twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1589684471527182336

Where is your defendant domiciled? Even for a Part 8 claim you'll need permission to serve out of the jurisdiction if they're outside the UK.

IANAL,@MoirasSaggyBundles, but I think that is a very astute question and I would be interested in the answer. Regarding whether "being GC" could be assumed as a characteristic of the majority of potential ticket buyers, I would think that was a perfectly reasonable assumption, not made less reasonable because the assumed protected characteristic is belief rather than one of the obvious physical ones like sex or age.

That's a very interesting suggestion. 75 people have bought 85 tickets. I am sure I could find someone in that group who would want to get involved. Eventbrite have smeared both me and them.

Exactly this. I haven't gone into this to 'win' a legal action - although it would be very nice! - but to shine a light on what is happening and hopefully provoke conversation at a high law/policy making level.

Yes, I agree. Before Maya's subsequent victories, it was her loss in the first employment tribunal that made everybody sit up and take notice about how TR activism was affecting work based relations, and just how insidious it had/has become. That loss was victory in itself.

Hopefully, though @Spero you will be on to a winner! I have dug a little today and will dig a bit more in the next week or so. Good luck X

Yes. This shutting down of women is really insidious. And all and any laws will be used to accomplish it.

Every single thing needs taking out, putting on the table and scrutinised.

Good luck Spero. .

Mumsnetters are brilliant at helping with this sort of thing. Thousands upon thousands of women in one place with an almost infinite breadth of knowledge. It's a resource that's never existed in history.

I agree. When the history of all this is written, Mumsnet will play a prominent role. Without this resource that permitted women to gather and share their expertise, I think we would be in a very different and very dangerous place about now. My solicitor has the link to this thread and is reading with interest. Thanks again to all who have commented in good faith, or donated their cold hard cash!

I suspect things will now go quiet until I know the outcome of the 'review' but I will come back and update you - or check out my Twitter, where I will 'pin' updates to the start of my feed. It's 'atSVPhillimore'

Dug a little, good luck Spero please keep us posted on progress here. I will dig some more next month

My solicitor has the link to this thread and is reading with interest.

The cases that have been heard so far seem to have attracted real interest within the legal profession, especially Allison's which could be attended on line. They raised new issues and there are precedents to be set. (Eventbrite's behaviour, like that of Paypal to Toby Young, suggests unwelcome cultural overreach by US corporations.) People here and elsewhere will have formed opinions of the legal professionals involved, and lawyers presumably might think there is a chance to either build a name, or to achieve something constructive.

Alternatively is there envy at the fangirling Ben Cooper and his support wren received?

A new slogan: Came for the feminism, and stayed for the AIBU/The Dog House/ Weaning.

I don't give a damn what motivates my solicitor - I care that he is competent and does a good job.

For every solicitor willing to take these cases on I bet there are many too cowed to risk it - I was turned down by two other firms who I suspect did not want to harm their existing commercial interests with Eventbrite, who they represented in other jurisdictions. And that's frankly terrifying. The law should always take precedence over profit.

That is quite shocking. I hope though that the tide is turning and that more solicitors/barristers see advantage in taking on GC cases. Things already seem better than they were.

IANAL so I am thinking about this like a non lawyer. I'm sure discoverreads could well be right about the contract law side of things. But it seems to me that shouldn't effect how this is dealt with under the EA.

You don't need to have a contract with a company to experience discrimination by them under the EA. To my mind it's just a matter of fact that they are offering a service in England - someone in England buys a ticket to an event in England which has been advertised on the site by the organiser who is in England. The price is in £. So surely they will meet the criteria of providing goods & services under the EA? (Or is it not that simple?).

But if I'm wrong it does raise this interesting point about california tech companies holding power over a great deal of cultural life here & in the rest of the world. It's been kind of OK for us because America does have human rights laws & anti discrimination laws, and has similar social mores to here. It could have looked v different if by some accident of fate the web companies were mostly based in the gulf States and reflected their social mores. But this issue (gender id v sex) is really showing up the discrepancy.

Yes, but do they have the specific law that we have now? From the Maya forstarter case.

We now have the gender critical belief that sex is real and that it matters fully protected by law.

The ticket seller, Eventbrite, is in California USA. The services contract was between the OP and Eventbrite US. So yes this was a cross border digital service.

Matches what I told you yesterday at 17:42 that you can opt out of the binding arbitration per 9(d). Which is always a good idea.

The ROI entity for Eventbrite is for payment processing of tickets only. It’s not an Eventbrite contracting entity for services.

per end of 1.2
”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.”

@Spero
Dont think you can opt out per 9(l) as deadline is thirty days from the day you first used their services and that has passed. 9(d) exceptions is still open to you.

”The notice must be sent within thirty (30) days of your first use of the Services or your agreement to these Terms (whichever is later); otherwise, you will be bound to arbitrate disputes in accordance with the terms of those paragraphs.”

The bar they've set in their T&Cs is - is the content discriminatory against transgender people?

So, the first question to address is: "In English law, can ticket sellers refuse to sell tickets for events which are discrimatory against people with a protected chracteristic?"

The second is "is this content discrimatory against people with that protected characteristic?"

If their decision meets both those tests, the case will fail.

Believing gay people go to hell is a protected belief - in fact all but "the most extreme beliefs may be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and therefore may amount to protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, save in circumstances where the beliefs involve the gravest form of hate speech which incites violence or seeks to destroy the Convention rights and freedoms of others."

Yep. Uphill battle. Burden of proof on you. Most of the evidence to prove discrimination would be held by Eventbrite as circumstantial evidence of “my event was unpublished following complaints” isn’t sufficient to prove discrimination.

I have several guesses as to why the Eventbrite “review” takes 7 days to inform you they’re doing one and another 10 days to do it. It’s because that’s not all they are doing.

Been down that road. If you can get pro bono, go for it. These mega companies are very good at dragging legal matters out until the other party quits due to lack of resources to keep fighting.