July 24, 2026  ·  Complaint filed July 7, 2026  ·  United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:26-cv-05744

By David Brunk, civil litigation attorney

Read the complaint

Andrew Stasium v. StubHub Challenges StubHub’s sale of unauthorized 2026 World Cup tickets for $1,884.64

Andrew Stasium, individually and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and a California state sub-class, filed a class action complaint against StubHub, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 7, 2026 (Case No 1:26-cv-05744. 1:26-cv-05744). The complaint alleges StubHub sold unauthorized 2026 FIFA World Cup tickets under its Fan Protect Guarantee, which promised authenticity and refunds, while omitting that FIFA—the sole authorized seller—explicitly warned that tickets purchased outside its platform "may be invalid." Plaintiff seeks over $5,000,000 in damages, plus injunctive relief, under federal and state consumer protection laws, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312), California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), and California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500).

The complaint centers on StubHub’s sale of tickets for the June 26, 2026, France vs. Norway World Cup match. Stasium paid $1,884.64 for two tickets, which fell within the lowest price range of $1,245–$3,000 for World Cup tickets (Compl. ¶6). The tickets were canceled by StubHub on June 20, 2026, leaving him unable to attend the event. StubHub later issued replacement tickets that were unusable and, according to the complaint, "worse World Cup tickets" than those originally purchased under the Fan Protect Guarantee (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges StubHub misrepresented its authority to sell World Cup tickets, deflected blame onto FIFA for "transfer problems," and engaged in deceptive advertising practices.

"StubHub misrepresents its authority to sell World Cup Tickets," the complaint states (Compl. ¶7), while FIFA’s resale terms warn that "RESALE TICKETS PURCHASED VIA UNAUTHORISED RESALE CHANNELS MAY NOT BE VALID OR SOLD IN BREACH OF TICKET USE RESTRICTIONS" (Compl. ¶4). The proposed class includes "thousands of unsuspecting consumers nationwide" who purchased tickets through StubHub for the 2026 World Cup. An attorney in Texas has accumulated 150+ clients who are collectively owed millions of dollars from StubHub’s ticket sales (Compl. ¶9).

StubHub’s Alleged Mechanism for Selling Unauthorized 2026 World Cup Tickets

The complaint alleges that StubHub, Inc. sold 2026 World Cup tickets despite lacking authorization from FIFA, the sole entity permitted to distribute them. FIFA’s World Cup 2026 Ticket Transfer and Resale Terms, updated on June 18, 2026, explicitly warned that resale tickets purchased via unauthorized channels "may not be valid or sold in breach of ticket use restrictions," with the emphasis appearing in the original document (Compl. ¶13). FIFA also imposes a 30% resale tax—15% each for buyers and sellers—on authorized transactions (Compl. ¶6). The complaint further notes that the lowest price range for World Cup tickets was $1,245–$3,000.

Plaintiff Andrew Stasium paid $1,884.64 for two tickets to the June 26, 2026, France vs. Norway match, only to have them canceled on June 20, 2026. StubHub later issued replacement tickets that were unusable and inferior to the original purchase (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that StubHub knew or should have known that its sales of World Cup tickets were unauthorized, as FIFA’s resale terms explicitly state that "tickets obtained from any third-party sources are not authorized by FIFA [and] may be invalid" (Compl. ¶32).

The complaint alleges that StubHub "should not have sold" the tickets and "deflected blame" for the cancellations onto FIFA, citing a company statement that "The issues fans have experienced at this World Cup are transfer problems, not ticket problems" (Compl. ¶28). Media reports, including an article in The Guardian, described "horror stories about stranded families, ruined once-in-a-lifetime trips, thousands of dollars squandered" (Compl. ¶26). The Associated Press and Reuters also reported on widespread cancellations, with Reuters noting that fans were "flustered by last-minute StubHub ticket cancellations" (Compl. ¶26).

Ticket Prices, Fees, and Financial Harm to Plaintiff and Proposed Class

The complaint alleges that FIFA imposes a 30% resale tax—15% each for buyers and sellers—on authorized transactions (Compl. ¶6). The complaint further alleges that the harm to consumers substantially outweighed any benefit of the resale market, as StubHub sold tickets outside FIFA’s platform without disclosing the lack of authorization or the risk of invalidation.

Plaintiff Andrew Stasium paid $1,884.64 for two tickets to the June 26, 2026, France vs. Norway match, which fell within the lowest price range of $1,245–$3,000 for World Cup tickets (Compl. ¶6). StubHub later canceled these tickets. The complaint alleges that StubHub issued replacement tickets that were unusable, leaving Stasium unable to attend the event. The filing describes the Fan Protect Guarantee as a central misrepresentation, quoting its promise that StubHub "back[s] every order so you can buy and sell tickets with 100% confidence" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint further alleges that StubHub sold tickets nationwide, with thousands of consumers affected by cancellations or unusable replacements. An attorney in Texas represents 150+ clients who are collectively owed millions of dollars from StubHub’s ticket sales (Compl. ¶9).

The financial harm extends beyond individual transactions, the complaint argues. The amount in controversy in the case exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest, and the plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees. The complaint alleges that StubHub’s conduct was not only deceptive but also "unfair," as the harm to consumers "substantially outweigh[ed] any utility" of selling unauthorized tickets (Compl. ¶59). Plaintiff also cites guidance from the Federal Trade Commission stating that "obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms… [that] appear to provide coverage, but, in fact, provide none" (Compl. ¶54). The complaint contends that StubHub’s Fan Protect Guarantee violated this principle by promising refunds and authenticity for tickets that the company allegedly knew it could not deliver.

Parties: Plaintiff, Proposed Classes, and Defendant StubHub, Inc.

The complaint names Andrew Stasium as lead plaintiff and proposed class representative. Stasium, who purchased two 2026 World Cup tickets from StubHub for $1,884.64, alleges the tickets were canceled on June 20, 2026, leaving him unable to attend the June 26, 2026, France vs. Norway match. Under StubHub’s Fan Protect Guarantee, Stasium received replacement tickets that were unusable and inferior to his original purchase (Compl. ¶8). The tickets he purchased fell within the lowest price range of $1,245–$3,000 for World Cup tickets (Compl. ¶6).

The suit seeks to certify two classes: a Nationwide Class and a California State Sub-Class. The complaint describes the proposed classes as including "thousands of unsuspecting consumers" who purchased 2026 World Cup tickets through StubHub. The filing does not specify exact class size but notes that the proposed classes include at least 100 putative class members and that StubHub sold tickets to consumers nationwide. An attorney in Texas has accumulated 150+ clients with similar claims against the company, who are collectively owed millions of dollars (Compl. ¶9). The proposed classes include consumers who suffered financial harm due to StubHub’s alleged misrepresentations and failure to deliver valid tickets.

The sole defendant is StubHub, Inc., a ticket resale platform that the complaint alleges sold unauthorized 2026 World Cup tickets under its Fan Protect Guarantee, which promised authenticity and refunds. The filing contends that StubHub "misrepresents its authority to sell World Cup Tickets" (Compl. ¶7) and "deflected blame" onto FIFA for "transfer problems," stating, "The issues fans have experienced at this World Cup are transfer problems, not ticket problems" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint further alleges that StubHub engaged in a "systematic campaign of false and misleading advertising and marketing" (Compl. ¶73).

Key non-parties include FIFA (FWC2026 US, INC.), the organizer of the 2026 World Cup and sole authorized seller of tickets, which imposes a 30% resale tax—15% each for buyers and sellers—and warns that tickets purchased outside its platform "may be invalid" (Compl. ¶6, ¶13). The complaint also references guidance from the Federal Trade Commission stating that warranties "must not contain deceptive or misleading terms" (Compl. ¶54).

Federal and California Consumer Protection Claims

The complaint alleges that StubHub violated federal and state consumer protection laws by misrepresenting its authority to sell 2026 World Cup tickets and by including deceptive terms in its Fan Protect Guarantee. Plaintiff Andrew Stasium, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and a California sub-class, brings claims targeting StubHub’s conduct under multiple statutes.

In Count I, the complaint alleges a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312) against StubHub. The act governs written warranties on consumer products and prohibits deceptive or misleading terms. The complaint cites guidance from the Federal Trade Commission that "obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms" (Compl. ¶54). Plaintiff alleges that StubHub’s Fan Protect Guarantee, which promised to "back[] every order so you can buy and sell tickets with 100% confidence," contained such deceptive terms because it failed to disclose that StubHub lacked authorization to sell World Cup tickets and that FIFA, the sole authorized seller, explicitly warned that "tickets obtained from any third-party sources are not authorized by FIFA [and] may be invalid" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint further alleges that the guarantee violated FTC guidance by appearing to provide coverage while, in fact, providing none (Compl. ¶54).

In Count II, the complaint alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) against StubHub. The law prohibits "unfair" business practices, defined as conduct that offends public policy or causes harm that "substantially outweigh[s] any utility" of the practice. The complaint alleges that StubHub’s sale of unauthorized World Cup tickets was unfair because the harm to consumers—including financial losses and inability to attend matches—outweighed any benefit of the resale market. Plaintiff contends that StubHub’s conduct was "unfair" under this law’s balancing test, as it misled consumers into purchasing tickets that were later canceled or rendered unusable (Compl. ¶59). The complaint further alleges that StubHub’s conduct was deceptive because it violated consumers’ reasonable expectations, as the company sold tickets nationwide (Compl. ¶67).

In Count III, the complaint alleges a violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750) against StubHub, seeking injunctive relief only. The act prohibits deceptive practices in consumer transactions and authorizes injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining StubHub from continuing to sell unauthorized World Cup tickets and from making misrepresentations about its authority to do so. The complaint also reserves the right to amend the complaint to provide notice regarding statutory damages after a 30-day cure period (Compl. ¶71).

In Count IV, the complaint alleges a violation of the California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500) against StubHub. The law prohibits "untrue or misleading" statements in advertising. The complaint alleges that StubHub engaged in false and misleading advertising by representing that it could sell World Cup tickets, promising refunds under the Fan Protect Guarantee, and omitting its lack of authorization from FIFA. Plaintiff contends that these misrepresentations induced consumers to purchase tickets they would not have bought had they known the truth, stating, "Defendant engaged in a systematic campaign of false and misleading advertising and marketing" (Compl. ¶73). The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff relied on these false representations when purchasing World Cup Tickets (Compl. ¶74).

The complaint ties these claims together by alleging that StubHub’s conduct was part of a broader pattern of deception. Plaintiff asserts that StubHub misled consumers through three key omissions and misrepresentations: (1) representing that it could sell World Cup tickets, (2) promising refunds under the Fan Protect Guarantee, and (3) failing to disclose its lack of authorization from FIFA. The complaint seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees under the relevant laws. The complaint further alleges that Defendant knew information about World Cup Tickets was material to consumers and sold tickets nationwide (Compl. ¶68).

Common Law Claims and Additional Allegations

The complaint alleges that StubHub breached its Fan Protect Guarantee by failing to deliver valid 2026 World Cup tickets or provide refunds, forming the basis for a breach of contract claim (Count V). According to the filing, the guarantee promised that StubHub would "back every order so you can buy and sell tickets with 100% confidence" (Compl. ¶24), yet Plaintiff Andrew Stasium and proposed class members received either canceled tickets or unusable replacements after paying amounts such as the $1,884.64 Stasium spent for two tickets, which fell within the lowest price range of $1,245–$3,000 for World Cup tickets (Compl. ¶6). The complaint contends that StubHub’s failure to honor its guarantee constituted a material breach of the agreement, entitling Plaintiff and the class to damages, restitution, and other relief.

In Count VI, the complaint alleges conversion against StubHub, asserting that the company "unjustly retained benefits" from Plaintiff and class members, including funds paid for invalid tickets. The filing states that StubHub converted payments meant for valid World Cup tickets into its own profits. The complaint further asserts that "It would be inequitable for Defendant to retain any of the profit or other benefits it derived from the unfair and unconscionable methods" (Compl. ¶84), seeking disgorgement of unlawful proceeds into a common fund for Plaintiff and class members. The complaint alleges that Defendant received benefits from Plaintiff and Class members and unjustly retained those benefits at their expense (Compl. ¶79).

The complaint seeks actual, punitive, and statutory damages for these claims, as well as injunctive relief to prevent StubHub from continuing its alleged unlawful practices. It also demands a jury trial on all claims, including the common law and statutory causes of action. The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff and Class members were injured in that they paid for the World Cup Tickets that were not what Defendant represented (Compl. ¶69).

Distinctive Pleadings: StubHub’s Blame-Shifting, Media Coverage, and FTC Guidance

The complaint alleges that StubHub systematically deflected responsibility for its sale of unauthorized 2026 World Cup tickets, despite FIFA’s explicit warnings that third-party resale platforms lacked authority to transfer valid tickets. According to the filing, StubHub attributed cancellations to "significant performance issues that have affected ticket transfers across all resale platforms," a statement the plaintiff characterizes as an attempt to shift blame onto FIFA for problems "outside of StubHub’s control" (Compl. ¶7). The complaint further alleges that this deflection was part of a broader pattern: "StubHub should not have sold World Cup Tickets in the first instance and then deflected blame for its misrepresentations onto FIFA" (Compl. ¶31). StubHub’s public statements included the assertion that "The issues fans have experienced at this World Cup are transfer problems, not ticket problems" (Compl. ¶28).

Media reports cited in the complaint underscore the scale of the alleged harm. The Guardian described "horror stories about stranded families, ruined once-in-a-lifetime trips, thousands of dollars squandered" (Compl. ¶26), while Reuters reported that "World Cup fans [were] flustered by last-minute StubHub ticket cancellations" (Compl. ¶26). The Associated Press and The Guardian also published articles providing guidance to affected consumers, with The Guardian publishing a piece titled, "Here’s what to do if your StubHub World Cup resale ticket is cancelled" on June 27, 2026 (Compl. ¶26). The complaint alleges that these cancellations left consumers with unusable or inferior replacement tickets, including the plaintiff, who received "worse World Cup tickets" than those originally purchased under StubHub’s Fan Protect Guarantee (Compl. ¶8).

The complaint also invokes guidance from the Federal Trade Commission to bolster its claims. The guidance states that "obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms" (Compl. ¶54). The plaintiff alleges that StubHub’s Fan Protect Guarantee, which promised "100% confidence" in ticket authenticity, violated this principle by failing to disclose its lack of authorization to sell World Cup tickets and by omitting the risk that FIFA would invalidate them. The complaint argues that StubHub’s conduct was not only deceptive but also "unfair," as the harm to consumers "substantially outweigh[ed] any utility" of selling unauthorized tickets (Compl. ¶59). Plaintiff contends that StubHub’s misrepresentations were material to consumers’ purchasing decisions, as the company sold tickets nationwide, with prices ranging from $1,245–$3,000 for the lowest-priced tickets (Compl. ¶6, ¶68).

Relief Sought and Procedural Posture: $5,000,000+, Class Certification, and Jury Trial Demand

The complaint seeks sweeping relief on behalf of the proposed nationwide class and California sub-class, framing the dispute as a systemic violation of consumer protection laws. Plaintiff Andrew Stasium demands a declaratory judgment that StubHub’s conduct violated federal and state law, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312), California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750), and California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500). The filing also requests injunctive relief to bar StubHub from continuing its alleged unlawful practices, including the sale of unauthorized World Cup tickets under its Fan Protect Guarantee.

Damages are framed as both compensatory and punitive. The complaint seeks actual damages, punitive damages, and statutory damages, including enhanced damages under California law. Plaintiff also demands disgorgement of profits into a constructive trust for the class, arguing that "It would be inequitable for Defendant to retain any of the profit or other benefits it derived from the unfair and unconscionable methods" (Compl. ¶84). The complaint seeks restitution of unlawfully obtained profits, along with pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest.

Procedurally, the complaint moves for class certification, proposing both a Nationwide Class and a California State Sub-Class. The Nationwide Class includes all consumers in the United States who purchased 2026 World Cup tickets through StubHub, while the California State Sub-Class includes California residents who made such purchases. The complaint alleges that the proposed classes include "thousands of unsuspecting consumers" who purchased tickets within the price range of $1,245–$3,000 and beyond (Compl. ¶6). Plaintiff also demands a jury trial on all claims, including those for breach of contract, conversion, and violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. The filing notes that Plaintiff will amend the complaint to provide notice regarding statutory damages under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act after a required 30-day cure period (Compl. ¶71).

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.