Michigan Football Ticket Reseller Refiles $2.5M Lawsuit Over Policy Change
Table of Contents
ANN ARBOR, MI – A legal showdown is escalating between a Michigan football season ticket holder and the University of Michigan. Kevin Brick, owner of North Carolina-based Maxim Tickets, Inc.,has refiled a $2.5 million lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims. The suit, initially filed in federal court and later dismissed, alleges that changes to the university’s season ticket policy will cost Brick’s company millions in lost revenue. Filed on Feb. 28, the complaint accuses the university of deceiving Maxim Tickets into donating millions, only to abruptly change the policy without notice.
The refiled lawsuit follows a dismissal in December of an initial attempt in federal court. The original federal lawsuit, filed in August, was dismissed becuase claims against a state entity cannot be pursued in federal court, as the University of Michigan is a state agency. The new complaint focuses on alleged violations of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act and Michigan common law.
Allegations of Deceptive Practices
At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that the University of Michigan altered its ticket resale policy without adequately informing ticket holders like Brick.The complaint alleges that this sudden shift has had meaningful financial repercussions for Maxim Tickets, Inc.
Brick alleges that the athletic department,”without warning in early 2024,” prohibited individuals from purchasing tickets solely for resale purposes and subsequently blocked him from accessing his tickets. Given that he had been purchasing hundreds of tickets for 21 years, Brick contends that this policy change misled him into making considerable financial investments without the opportunity to recoup those funds.
The lawsuit estimates that this policy change will result in a loss of $2.5 million to $3.5 million in revenue per year for his company. The core of Brick’s argument lies in the alleged lack of transparency and the sudden nature of the policy shift.
Despite UM’s longstanding policy of allowing resale and transfer of football season’s tickets, it unilaterally changed its terms and conditions without (our) consent or knowledge in (and) around 2023.
the lawsuit alleges.
University’s Stance and Ticket Policy
According to David Ablauf, an athletics department spokesperson, the resale policy went into effect in April 2023, prior to the 2023 football season. Ablauf stated that the department does not comment on active lawsuits.
The athletic department’s official policy states that tickets “may not be purchased for the primary purpose of resale and might potentially be canceled at the discretion of the department.” While this policy was not explicitly mentioned in a 2022 email sent to season ticket holders, which Brick included in the lawsuit, the current policy also stipulates that season ticket holders may possess no more than eight total tickets for both regular season and postseason games.
Season ticket holders attempting to circumvent established ticket limits by creating numerous accounts may have their tickets canceled at the discretion of Michigan Athletics.
The policy states.
Long-Term Ticket Holder Claims Policy Shift
Brick contends that the policy change was implemented without proper notification to long-standing ticket holders like himself. The lawsuit states that Maxim tickets had purchased over 1,000 tickets in the past two decades and, as of February 2024, maintained 164 active ticket accounts for Michigan football.
According to the lawsuit, Brick believed that seats were guaranteed annually, freely transferable for profit through platforms like StubHub, and that payments for tickets and donations to the department would accrue Priority Points, unlocking additional benefits. However, in january 2024, Brick received an email from the athletic department informing him that his accounts were linked to ticket brokering and would be locked.
The lawsuit further alleges that the department effectively concealed the policy change from Brick until after he discovered he was in violation of it.
Freedom of Information Act Allegations
Along with the claims regarding the ticket policy change, Brick and Maxim Tickets are accusing the university of violating Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. They allege that the university has withheld internal documents pertaining to the ticket policy and communications with current or prospective ticket holders.
Brick and Maxim Tickets are seeking $2 million in damages. The university’s athletic department has not yet responded to requests for comment on the refiled lawsuit.
Conclusion
The refiling of this lawsuit marks the continuation of a significant dispute between Kevin Brick and the University of Michigan. The case raises questions about transparency, interaction, and the rights of long-term ticket holders in the face of evolving athletic department policies. As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome could have broader implications for ticket resale practices and the relationship between universities and their loyal fan base.
Michigan Stadium Showdown: Reselling Tickets & the Rights of Long-Term Fans
“The recent legal battle between a ticket reseller and the University of Michigan highlights a growing tension between institutions and their loyal fanbase regarding ticket resale rights. It’s a clash that could redefine the future of collegiate sports ticketing.”
Interviewer: Professor Reynolds, you’re a leading expert in sports law and consumer rights. This lawsuit filed by Maxim Tickets, Inc., against the University of Michigan alleges deceptive practices regarding a change in their ticket resale policy. Can you explain the core issue at stake?
Professor Reynolds: at it’s heart, this case revolves around the evolving relationship between universities, their athletic departments, and season ticket holders, specifically focusing on the rights associated with ticket resale. Maxim Tickets, Inc., argues that the university of Michigan misled them by implicitly allowing, and even encouraging, ticket resales for years, only to abruptly change the policy, causing significant financial losses. the key legal question is whether the university had a legal obligation to provide sufficient notice of the policy change and, more importantly, whether the prior actions of the athletic department could be interpreted as creating a binding implied contract or legitimate expectation.This isn’t just about Michigan; it sets a precedent for other universities with similar policies.
Interviewer: The lawsuit mentions the University’s alleged violation of the Michigan Freedom of Data Act. how does this aspect contribute to the overall legal strategy of Maxim Tickets?
Professor Reynolds: The Freedom of Information Act claim is a crucial element of Maxim Tickets’ case. By alleging that the university withheld internal documents related to the policy change and communications with ticket holders,they aim to demonstrate a purposeful attempt at concealment. This alleged lack of openness strengthens the argument that the university acted deceptively. Successfully obtaining these documents could reveal discussions, memos, or emails that would shed light on the timing and intentionality of the policy change, possibly demonstrating their knowledge and intent to negatively impact resellers before they announced the revised policy. Access to this information is vital for proving their claims.
Interviewer: The university’s policy states tickets “may not be purchased for the primary purpose of resale.” How is “primary purpose” being interpreted here, and what implications does this have for legitimate ticket holders?
Professor Reynolds: That’s the critical ambiguity that will likely be fought over in court. The phrase “primary purpose” is notoriously vague and difficult to define.Was Brick’s “primary purpose” resale, even though he’s been a loyal season ticket holder for over two decades? How does one determine what percentage of a ticket buyer’s motivations constitutes “primary purpose?” This lack of clarity creates uncertainty for long-term ticket holders and allows for potential abuse of judgment. The implications for legitimate ticket holders are significant as the policy’s vagueness makes it difficult for even loyal fans to understand the boundaries of acceptable ticket usage and transfer. This could lead to increased scrutiny and arbitrary cancellations of tickets, harming the very fans universities need to maintain ticket sales and revenue.
Interviewer: What are the potential broader implications of this case beyond the specific dispute?
Professor Reynolds: This case could significantly impact how universities manage ticket sales and resale across the country. A ruling in favor of Maxim Tickets could force universities to be far more transparent about their policies and provide better notice of any changes. It could lead to improved, more explicit guidelines regarding ticket transfers and resales, perhaps even more regulated secondary markets for college sports tickets. The outcome will undoubtedly inform how universities approach their relationship with season ticket holders and secondary market sellers, shaping future agreements and policies.
Interviewer: What advice would you give to college athletic departments concerning their ticket resale policies and communications with ticket holders?
Professor Reynolds: Transparency and clear communication are paramount. Universities should strive for unambiguous ticket resale policies, which must be consistently applied. They also need effective channels to communicate policy updates to ticket holders, ensuring that the information is easily accessible and understandable. It’s essential to build and maintain trust with loyal, devoted fans.Proactive transparency is not only legally prudent but also crucial for preserving the relationship between the institution and its supporters, who often represent a vital revenue stream.
Interviewer: Thank you, Professor Reynolds, for shedding light on this critically important legal issue.
Concluding Thought: This dispute over ticket resale rights between Maxim Tickets and the University of Michigan underscores the growing need for clear, transparent policies governing the secondary ticket market in collegiate sports. The outcome will shape the relationship between universities, their fans, and the resale industry for years to come. Share your thoughts on this legal battle in the comments below!