StubHub buyers were the proposed class in a lawsuit alleging StubHub hid its CEO’s financial ties to a professional ticket reseller while marketing itself as a neutral “marketplace for fans.” On September 14, 2026, a federal judge sent the case to individual arbitration and paused it in court, so no class is moving forward and there is nothing to claim.
Allegations Only · Sent to Arbitration
This article describes a proposed class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. StubHub and Eric Baker have not been found liable, no class has been certified, and on September 14, 2026 the court sent the plaintiff’s claims to individual arbitration. There is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
StubHub and its founder and CEO, Eric H. Baker, are facing a proposed class action alleging the company sold itself to buyers as a neutral "marketplace for fans to buy and sell tickets" while allegedly concealing Baker's financial ties to a professional ticket reseller. New York resident Louis Sanquini filed the complaint on July 13, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to represent a nationwide class of StubHub customers. The case is Sanquini v. StubHub Holdings, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y.), and the complaint alleges deceptive practices and fraudulent misrepresentation. The allegations are unproven and no class has been certified.According to the complaint, StubHub's own filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission describe Baker as a part owner and managing director of Andro Capital, an entity the suit calls a professional ticket reseller that has sold tickets on StubHub's platform since about 2008. The suit points to SEC disclosures it says show StubHub earned fees from Andro's sales, owed the reseller money in ticket proceeds, and had other financial dealings with it. The complaint alleged that the class’s combined claims exceed $5 million, the threshold for a federal class action. StubHub has publicly defended its marketplace, and the claims have never been tested on their merits.
Update: Judge Sends the Case to Arbitration
On September 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted StubHub’s motion to compel arbitration, paused the court case until the arbitration is finished, and denied StubHub’s alternative motion to dismiss as moot. He issued a written opinion explaining the ruling on September 21, 2026. Shortly before the ruling, the parties agreed to substitute StubHub, Inc. for StubHub Holdings, Inc. as the defendant, so the case is now captioned Sanquini v. StubHub, Inc.The opinion turns on StubHub’s checkout screen. When the plaintiff bought tickets in December 2023 and September 2024, a notice directly above the “Buy Now” button said that clicking it meant accepting StubHub’s terms and conditions, with a hyperlink to its Global User Agreement. That agreement opened with a bold, capitalized warning that it required most disputes to go to binding arbitration on an individual basis, not as part of a class action, unless the user opted out. The court found that this notice was reasonably conspicuous under California law, that clicking “Buy Now” showed agreement, and that StubHub had no record of the plaintiff opting out. It rejected the plaintiff’s objections to StubHub’s evidence and his argument that the arbitration clause was unconscionable, noting that users could opt out within 30 days of a purchase.
The court also held that Baker, StubHub’s CEO, can require arbitration even though he did not personally sign the user agreement, because the claims against him and against StubHub are the same dispute. The ruling did not decide whether StubHub did anything wrong; it decided only where the plaintiff’s claims must be heard.
The "Neutral Marketplace" Question
The heart of the case is a disclosure argument, not a dispute about whether the arrangement was reported to regulators. The complaint does not claim StubHub hid the Andro relationship from the SEC; instead, it argues the company never surfaced that information to the everyday customers clicking "buy" on the site — the people who, the suit says, were told they were using a neutral fan-to-fan marketplace. Whether omitting that detail from consumers is unlawful under New York consumer-protection law is exactly what a court would have to decide. Nothing has been proven at this stage.Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Who Could Be Affected
The complaint proposed a nationwide class of people who bought, received and used tickets on StubHub, and excluded claims about tickets that were never delivered, canceled or invalid, which are the subject of a separate case, Moghal v. StubHub, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-05569 (S.D.N.Y.). With the case sent to individual arbitration under an agreement that bars class proceedings, the proposed class is not moving forward in court, and no class has been certified.What Happens Next
The court case is stayed while the plaintiff’s individual claims proceed in arbitration, if he pursues them. Arbitration is private, so its outcome may never appear on the public docket. The plaintiff could also seek to appeal the ruling; no appeal had appeared on the docket as of October 3, 2026. Because the class claims are not proceeding, there is no notice or claim process and nothing to file.This is one of several legal headaches for StubHub tied to the 2026 World Cup ticket rush. OCA is also covering a U.S. class action over canceled World Cup tickets, a separate Canadian class action over the same ticket-delivery failures, and StubHub's earlier FTC hidden-fees settlement.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the StubHub CEO lawsuit allege?
The proposed class action alleges StubHub marketed itself as a neutral marketplace for fans to buy and sell tickets while concealing that its founder and CEO, Eric Baker, holds a financial stake in Andro Capital, a professional ticket reseller that has sold tickets on StubHub's platform since about 2008. The suit claims this amounted to deceptive practices and fraudulent misrepresentation. These are unproven allegations.
Who filed it and in what court?
New York resident Louis Sanquini filed the proposed class action on July 13, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to represent a nationwide class of StubHub customers. The named defendants are StubHub Holdings, Inc. and its CEO and chairman, Eric H. Baker. The complaint alleged the class’s combined claims exceed $5 million. StubHub, Inc. was later substituted for StubHub Holdings, Inc. as the defendant.
Did StubHub disclose the arrangement?
The lawsuit does not dispute that StubHub described its relationship with Andro Capital in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Its central argument is that StubHub did not share that information with everyday customers buying tickets on the site. Whether that omission is unlawful has not been decided.
Is there anything to claim right now?
No. There is no certified class, no settlement, and no claim form. On September 14, 2026, the court sent the plaintiff’s claims to individual arbitration and stayed the case, so the proposed class is not moving forward in court.
Who is Andro Capital?
According to the complaint, Andro Capital is a professional ticket reseller that has sold tickets through StubHub since about 2008, and StubHub CEO Eric Baker is described as a part owner and managing director. The suit cites StubHub's SEC filings indicating StubHub earned fees from Andro's sales and had financial dealings with the reseller. These characterizations come from the complaint and StubHub's public filings.
Why did the judge send the StubHub case to arbitration?
Judge Rakoff found that StubHub’s checkout screen gave reasonably conspicuous notice, directly above the “Buy Now” button, that buying tickets meant accepting StubHub’s terms, which require most disputes to be arbitrated individually unless a user opts out. StubHub had no record of the plaintiff opting out, and the court found the arbitration clause was not unconscionable under California law.
Can StubHub buyers opt out of arbitration?
The user agreement the court reviewed allowed users to opt out of arbitration within 30 days of a transaction. The court noted that option in rejecting the plaintiff’s unconscionability argument. Whether a particular buyer opted out depends on StubHub’s records.
Sources
• CBC News — StubHub, CEO hit with "deceptive practices" class action over mass scalping• Front Office Sports — StubHub CEO sued for ties to hedge fund that resells tickets
• Complaint — Sanquini v. StubHub Holdings, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Order granting motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 32, Sept. 14, 2026)
• Opinion explaining the arbitration ruling (ECF No. 33, Sept. 21, 2026)
• Sanquini v. StubHub, Inc. — full court docket
