As anticipated in a previous post, there have been at least six more consumer lawsuits filed against companies for failing to honor their pre-COVID-19 refund and cancellation policies in the past two weeks.

Delta, Southwest, Spirit, Hawaiian Airlines, and Volaris are the latest defendants in the airline industry. See Daniels v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01664 (N.D. Ga. April 17, 2020); Bombin v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 5:20-cv-01883 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 2020); Manchur v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-10771 (D. Mass. April 21, 2020); Alvarez v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00175 (D. Haw. April 20, 2020); Levey v. Concesionaria Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S.A.P.I. de C.V., No. 1:20-cv-02215 (N.D. Ill. April 8, 2020).

However, such lawsuits span more than just the airline industry. On April 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Live National Entertainment Co. Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02685 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020). The complaint alleges that in March 2020, Ticketmaster changed its policy so that it no longer issued refunds for events that were postponed, rescheduled, or cancelled, but now only issued them for events that are officially cancelled. In other words, Ticketmaster will no longer issue monetary refunds for postponed concerts even if they are postponed indefinitely.

A similar lawsuit was filed in early April against StubHub for its decision to change the terms of “FanProtect,” a feature that previously permitted a purchaser to receive a full monetary refund if an event was cancelled, so that purchasers are now only permitted to receive a credit for future purchases. McMillan v. StubHub Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00319 (W.D. Wis. April 2, 2020).

These lawsuits are separate from a line of consumer lawsuits arising from:

• the failure to give monetary refunds for cancelled events when there was a no monetary refund policy at the time of purchase, Jimenez v. Do Lab, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03462 (C.D. Cal. April 14, 2020); Nesis v. Do Lab, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03452 (C.D. Cal. April 14, 2020);
• the failure to give refunds to season ticketholders despite the inability to use the season pass, Rezai-Hariri v. Magic Mountain LLC, No. 8:20-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2020); Hunt v. Vail Corp., No. 4:20-cv-02463 (N.D. Cal. April 10, 2020); and
• the failure to give refunds to baseball games that are not going to be played as scheduled and “despite near impossibility to play a standard 162-game season,” Ajzenman v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, No. 2:20-cv-03643 (C.D. Cal. April 20, 2020).

There has also been a lawsuit brought under Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act alleging that it is improper to retain unearned costs and fees, following the cancellation of a convention.  Mitchell v. NurseCon at Sea, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-21503 (S.D. Fla. April 8, 2020).

Companies should hesitate to change their refund and cancellation policies in ways that negatively impact consumers and should also consider modifying any current cancellation policies that are unfavorable to consumers. In today’s climate, companies that are seen as failing to protect consumers by keeping their money despite being unable to timely deliver promised services will likely face lawsuits for violation of state consumer protection laws and/or consumer collection practice laws.