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.

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

The bar they have in the T&Cs via the Community guidelines is - is the content disparaging towards a transgender individual or as a group.

This is a very low bar as disparagement merely means a lack of respect or belittling.

Text in full with lowest bar bolded:
”Don’t Post Hateful or Dangerous Content or Events That Discriminate Against or Threaten Any Societal Group, or Encourages Violence. This includes:

Hate speech, hateful ideologies and hateful activities that incite, encourage or engage in violence, intimidation, disparagement, harassment, or threats targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age or veteran status. Terrorist symbols, activities and organisations or organised criminal activity”
www.eventbrite.co.uk/l/community-guidelines/

This is a lower bar than discriminatory, but your questions are good ones for a non-contractual EqA case filed here as to whether Eventbrite US had a statutory right to refuse to sell the tickets.

It’s not a dispute between private persons, Eventbrite US isn’t a person.

@Discovereads thank you for that nuance - I was looking at the heading which mentioned discrimination. Any attempt to bring a case on belief rather than content I think will fail.

So, the plaintiff needs to prove one of the two: that the T&Cs are illegal, or that they weren't met.

A company is a legal person.

You must know that as an expert in international contracts!

@Discovereads
In case you want to look into it further
Check Sch 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978
"Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]"

I would exercise caution in relying on the views of someone who appeared to say contracts were under UK law (until an epic backpedal) and has now wrongly stated that Eventbrite is not a person.

These are not the sort of errors I would expect from someone with their stated level of experience.

Snort.
I'm enjoying it though. Almost as amusing as messy bundles.

FFS.

The T&Cs relate to a CONTRACTUAL claim.

Spero's intended action under the EqA is a STATUTORY TORT claim.

They are 2 completely different causes of action.
You cannot contract out of your rights under the EqA. The T&Cs don't trump the EqA.

Spero's already said she will likely go down the Part 8 route of a declaration on a point of law. THAT IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL CLAIM. If you don't know what that means procedurally, you should probably stop writing stupid posts.

The person whose characteristics are in question here is SPERO.

This is a lower bar than discriminatory, but your questions are good ones for a non-contractual EqA case filed here as to whether Eventbrite US had a statutory right to refuse to sell the tickets.

How does a US corporate entity have a statutory right under a piece of English legislation? The only persons with rights under he EqA are those persons with a protected characteristic.

And the trans community** weren't the people receiving the service (for the purposes of the EqA) from Eventbrite in order to invoke any sort of obligation on the part of Eventbrite towards them. The service recipient and obligation was towards Spero.

**although I completely refute the notion that there was anything about Spero's event that should have cause for concern for the trans community, or that they were in any way excluded from it.

The event was open to all - it has now sold out. I know quite few trans people who are also gender critical! But everyone was welcome. No one was excluded.
I would have been delighted if a trans person who believed in 'gender identity' wanted to write something for the book, or wanted to come and speak. But of course, that is incredibly unlikely. If any such person does come, I imagine they will be in a balaclava and shouting at us. The accusations of 'hate' only go one way it seems.

Not exactly a company is given the legal status of a person (that’s why they’re taxed, can enter into contracts and can be sued for manslaughter).

But a “private person” is never a company

So the phrase “a dispute between two private persons” always refers legally to two humans acting in their private capacity.

Chaz you have used contract and agreement synonymously when they’re not the same thing either. Shall I go and point out more of your mistakes?

@MoirasSaggyBundles
Think were going off your advice here:
”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.”

What is your authority for your statement that a private person is not a company? I provided a statutory citation for the fact that the term person includes a body corporate. So, where is your authority?

A natural person is not a company.

You said
Eventbrite US isn’t a person

When I pointed out that was utter nonsense and that the statutory definition of person includes a company you still try to argue. You then helpfully agree that for the purposes of legal issues like contracts, companies are indeed persons - cheers for that.

You are great entertainment - I'll give you that.

Argh. I'm currently listening to a diversity session (booked via Eventbrite...) on menopause in the workplace. One of the speakers just said "not everyone who goes through the menopause is a woman". Ffs.

I want to speak out but feel I cannot as this is a corporate event and my name has my organisation next to it and I'm concerned about repercussions. I HATE that I feel silenced on this topic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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?

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?