Viagogo to pay $7
million penalty for ‘industrial scale’ misrepresentations
Viagogo sells tickets for concerts, sport and theatre on
its online ticketing platform. But it crossed the red line
when it masqueraded as the ‘official’ seller of tickets,
when it was only a reseller, and ‘hid’ its 27.6% booking fee
until the time came for payment. The ‘red line’ is the
Australian Consumer Law and the consequences were a $7
million penalty, an injunction and a compliance program
ordered by the Federal Court of Australia. The judgment is
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v viagogo
AG (No. 3) [2020] FCA 1423 (2 October 2020) (Burley J).
It is the penalty judgment.
The contraventions of
the Australian Consumer Law The Court
summarised viagogo’s business in this way: “The viagogo
Australian website is viagogo’s virtual shopfront in
Australia. It is the place where consumers see what it has
on offer and, by navigating through it, can learn about
available tickets for specified events and then acquire
them.”
In the earlier liability judgment, the Court identified
four contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law
(ACL) on viagogo’s Australian website –
www.viagogo.com.au.
- Viagogo represented that it was the “official” agent
of the performer or promoter and consumers could
purchase original tickets from it when in fact it was
not affiliated with the performer or promoter and the
tickets were resold. (the Official Site Representation)
- At each stage in progressing through the site, the
consumer was given “hurry up” messages to create the
impression that tickets were running short when in fact
it was only the seats that viagogo had available on its
website that were limited. (the Quantity
Representations)
- On the “Tickets and Seating Selection Page”, the
consumer was given the impression that the price
displayed was the total price when in fact additional
fees were payable. (the Total Price Representation)
- On the “Delivery Page”, the ticket price was
displayed as a single figure without specifying that it
included the additional fees payable. (the Part Price
Representation)
Example – this is a screenshot of the
“Delivery Page” which warns ‘only a few tickets left’
and displays a price per ticket of $135 (without the
booking fee of $42.45 added).
For my case note on the liability judgment see: Four
internet marketing and price transparency lessons from
the viagogo decision in the Federal Court
Penalties and other
orders The Court found that the
contraventions were very serious. It made scathing
comments on the cavalier approach viagogo took to its
obligations under the Australian Consumer Law.
The Court took into account these factors in
assessing penalties:
- “I accept that the number of clicks on the
viagogo ad [on Google] indicates that there was a
very large number of incidents where consumers were
exposed to the Official Site Representation.” “The
number of people who entered a transaction is very
large.”
- “Having regard to the frequency of the
representations, and the manner in which they pop up
on the screen, in my view the Quantity
Representations are not likely to have escaped the
attention of any consumer. The representations were
on an industrial scale for the relevant period.”
- “The [Total Price] representation was made at a
significant time in the journey of the consumer
through the website, when the consumer was invited
for the first time to click on the “buy” option for
the tickets.”
- “Consumers were … subjected to the [Part Price]
representations on the Delivery Page, and were drawn
further into the transactional web as a result of
the representations.”
- “In assessing penalties … I take into account
that … Viagogo is a substantial worldwide
corporation which had significant revenue in
Australia in 2017… which provides some indication of
the order of magnitude of harm caused.”
- “[The contravening conduct] demonstrates a level
of deliberateness on the part of viagogo that tends
in favour of the need for a significant penalty to
deter it from further such conduct. Viagogo’s
responses give it the appearance of being a company
that is indifferent to the interests of Australian
consumers and which prefers to elevate its own
profit motives above those interests, even when on
notice of the potential for harm being done.”
- “There was no material corporate culture of
compliance with the ACL. Indeed, viagogo conducted
its operations on the internet via its website in a
manner that indicates a disregard for the ACL.”
- “Viagogo’s corrective action [to change its
website] was taken very late [some time after the
delivery of the liability judgment] and for it was
the legal equivalent of drawing teeth.”
- “A strong need for specific deterrence is
required. Furthermore, there is a need for a strong
signal to be sent to other corporations which
conduct internet based operations that, despite the
borderless operation of the internet, they are
nonetheless subject to the ACL when they conduct
business in Australia.”
- “In my view condign penalties are:
(1) Official Site Representation: $2.5 million;
(2) Quantity Representations: $2.5 million;
(3) Total Price Representation: $1.5 million; and
(4) Part Price Representation: $500,000.
The cumulative total of penalties above is $7
million.”
The Court ordered that viagogo be restrained for
five years from making representations of the kind
that contravened the ACL. The Court ordered that
viagogo submit an ACL compliance program, and
maintain and continue that program for three years.
The Court ordered viagogo to pay the ACCC’s costs of
the proceedings.
Comments
The ACCC received 1,990 complaints in relation to
the viagogo representations. The high level of
complaints the ACCC receives about online ticket
sellers for events has led it to publish a special
guide for consumers – Buying tickets online. In
that guide, the ACCC gives advice such as:
- Buy your ticket from an authorised ticket
seller
- Don’t trust search results alone
- Avoid resellers and scammers
- Paying for tickets by credit card means you
can ask for a chargeback if you do not receive
what you paid for
- Tips for getting the best tickets such as:
sign up for alerts, creating an online account,
keep checking for additional dates or seats for
‘sold out’ events and check ticket restrictions
Marketing
Commentary by Michael Field from EvettField
Partners Viagogo deliberately
deceived consumers and ignored the Australian
Consumer Law. It is clear they knew what they
were doing as their marketing exploited
well-known psychological flaws in consumer
buying and decision-making behaviour. Their marketing preyed on the heightened
emotions consumers experience when purchasing
leisure and entertainment opportunities online,
namely FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) and must buy
(from viagogo as the only authorised ticket
seller). This marketing strategy is an abject
failure. A simple Google search on the search
term ‘Viagogo’ reveals an alarming number of
‘negative’ search results, including damning
reviews on consumer feedback sites.
Trustpilot.com rates viagogo a shockingly low
score of 1.7 out of a possible 5 stars,
calculated from approximately 31,000 consumer
reviews. In addition, the viagogo Wikipedia page
has dedicated sections on ‘Criticisms’ and
‘Legal and Government Actions’ which occupy 10
times more article space and word count than
their ‘Business Model’ section. International
companies contemplating entering Australia must
properly research and understand the local laws
and regulations, in particular the Australian
Consumer Law. The damage now done to the viagogo
brand, which is based in Switzerland, is
amplified by the $7 million penalty. The damage
could have easily been avoided by a proper
understanding of and compliance with the
Australian Consumer Law.
The cost of incurring the wrath of the
Australian Consumer Regulator, the ACCC, the
penalty, and the massive brand damage caused
would pale into insignificance compared to a
comparatively modest investment of obtaining the
right legal advice from a specialist Australian
legal firm with experience in the sector. |