FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE PACQUIAOMAYWEATHER BOXING 

MATCH PAY-PER-VIEW 

LITIGATION,

GERALD F. ALESSI; VICTOR 

BOBADILLA; ENRIQUE 

BARRIOS; DAVID BRADLEY;

BILL BRADY; CHAMAR 

BYNUM; VICTOR CAPO;

SEAN MICHAEL CRABTREE;

DEVARIOUS CRAIG;

KRISTINA DARDEN; JOHN 

DAY; PAUL DEHART; BRIAN 

DENIS FLYNN; DAVID 

GALANDAK; RAY HEREDIA;

GREG HOEVENER;

JAMMERS, INC.; SETH J.

LAMB; JOSEPH LAKE; PAUL 

MAHONEY; ROBERT 

MARTINEZ; HEATHER 

MCDONALD; SUSAN 

MEDINA; HOWARD MILLER;

LISETTE NAZARIO; FELIX 

NATAL; EVANS NYCOLE;

GARY REMPEL; JACQUELINE 

MORA RODRIGUEZ; JASON 

SCHOFIELD; GABRIEL IVAN 

SANTOS; DAVID SMITH;

No. 17-56366

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06231-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06233-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03376-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06234-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06229-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06230-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06575-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06529-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06561-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06570-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06589-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03370-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03493-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03693-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-04435-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06226-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06586-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06587-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06587-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06591-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06664-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06665-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06701-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06707-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06713-RGK-PLA
2 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

ANGELA THILL; JOSHUA 

THRAILKILL; CHRISTOPHER 

VALLARO; CITY NIGHTS 

HOSPITALITY, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR.;

MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO; TOP 

RANK, INC.; ROBERT ARUM;

MICHAEL KONCZ; HOME 

BOX OFFICE, INC.; TODD 

DUBOEF,

Defendants-Appellees.

2:15-cv-07093-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06585-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06588-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06227-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06562-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06573-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06574-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06564-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06615-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06662-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03419-RGK-PLA
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 3

JAMMERS, INC., DBA Flight 

Restaurant/Flights Beer 

Bar, individually and on 

behalf of all others 

similarly situated; CITY 

NIGHTS HOSPITALITY, LLC, 

DBA 48 Lounge,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

MICHAEL KONCZ; ROBERT 

ARUM; TODD DUBOEF;

MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.; HOME 

BOX OFFICE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56372

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03493-RGK-PLA
4 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

PAUL MAHONEY, 

individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly 

situated; BRIAN DENIS 

FLYNN; JOHN DAY;

HEATHER MCDONALD;

ANGELA THILL; GARY 

REMPEL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO; TOP 

RANK, INC.; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.;

MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC; HOME 

BOX OFFICE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56379

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-03376-RGK-PLA
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 5

ENRIQUE BARRIOS;

CHRISTOPHER VALLARO;

FELIX NATAL; CHAMAR 

BYNUM; DAVID SMITH, 

individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO; TOP 

RANK, INC.; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; HOME BOX OFFICE,

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56381

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06233-RGK-PLA
6 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

GERALD F. ALESSI, on behalf 

of himself and all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.; ROBERT 

ARUM; TODD DUBOEF;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

MICHAEL KONCZ; HOME 

BOX OFFICE, INC.; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56382

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06585-RGK-PLA
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 7

BILL BRADY, individually 

and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated; HOWARD 

MILLER; PAUL BRODSKY;

MARCY LOKIETZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HOME BOX OFFICE, INC.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; FLOYD MAYWEATHER,

JR.; EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

TOP RANK, INC.; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56384

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-07093-RGK-PLA

DAVID BRADLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO; TOP 

RANK, INC.; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF; HOME BOX 

OFFICE, INC.; MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56385

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06591-RGK-PLA
8 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

VICTOR BOBADILLA;

LISETTE NAZARIO; JASON 

SCHOFIELD; EVANS NYCOLE, 

individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; ROBERT ARUM;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR.;

HOME BOX OFFICE, INC.;

MICHAEL KONCZ; TODD 

DUBOEF,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56386

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06231-RGK-PLA
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 9

DAVID GALANDAK; ROBERT 

MARTINEZ; SUSAN MEDINA, 

individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.; EMMANUEL 

PACQUIAO; HOME BOX 

OFFICE, INC.; MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.; ROBERT 

ARUM; TODD DUBOEF;

MICHAEL KONCZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56387

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06227-RGK-PLA

GREG HOEVENER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; ROBERT ARUM;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR.;

TODD DUBOEF; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; HOME BOX OFFICE,

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56388

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06230-RGK-PLA
10 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

DEVARIOUS CRAIG;

KRISTINA DARDEN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO; TOP 

RANK, INC.; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; HOME BOX OFFICE,

INC.; FLOYD MAYWEATHER,

JR.; MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56392

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06234-RGK-PLA

PAUL DEHART; RAY 

HEREDIA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.; EMMANUEL 

PACQUIAO; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; HOME BOX OFFICE,

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56394

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06561-RGK-PLA
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 11

SETH J. LAMB; VICTOR 

CAPO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HOME BOX OFFICE, INC.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; TOP RANK, INC.;

MICHAEL KONCZ; ROBERT 

ARUM; TODD DUBOEF;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56395

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06662-RGK-PLA
12 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

JACQUELINE MORA 

RODRIGUEZ; GABRIEL IVAN 

SANTOS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.; ROBERT 

ARUM; MICHAEL KONCZ;

TODD DUBOEF; EMMANUEL 

PACQUIAO; MAYWEATHER 

PROMOTIONS, LLC; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.; HOME 

BOX OFFICE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56398

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06665-RGK-PLA

JOSHUA THRAILKILL, on 

behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOP RANK, INC.; ROBERT 

ARUM; TODD DUBOEF;

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO;

MICHAEL KONCZ;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; FLOYD MAYWEATHER,

JR.; HOME BOX OFFICE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56399

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06701-RGK-PLA
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 13

SEAN MICHAEL CRABTREE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO; TOP 

RANK, INC.; MICHAEL 

KONCZ; ROBERT ARUM;

TODD DUBOEF; FLOYD 

MAYWEATHER, JR.;

MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS,

LLC; HOME BOX OFFICE,

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56401

D.C. Nos.

2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA

2:15-cv-06707-RGK-PLA

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2019

Pasadena, California

Filed November 21, 2019

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Ronald Lee 

Gilman* and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Nguyen

* The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge 

for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
14 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

SUMMARY**

Class Action

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of 

putative class actions in Multidistrict Litigation brought by 

spectators against boxers and promoters of the May 2, 2015 

Mayweather-Pacquiao fight.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants concealed a preexisting injury to boxer Emmanuel “Manny” Pacquiao, and 

they would not have purchased tickets had they known of the 

injury.

The panel held that plaintiffs, who were spectators 

disappointed by a sporting event, did not suffer a legally 

cognizable injury. The panel further held that plaintiffs 

essentially got what they paid for – a full-length regulation 

fight between two boxing legends.

COUNSEL

Hart L. Robinovitch (argued), Zimmerman Reed LLP, 

Scottsdale, Arizona; Paul B. Derby, Courtney E. Curtis, and 

John J. O’Kane IV, Skiermont Derby LLP, Los Angeles, 

California; Laurence D. King and Matthew B. George, 

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, San Francisco, California; 

Marc A. Goldich, Axler Goldich LLC, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; Kevin P. Roddy, Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer 

P.A.,Woodbridge, New Jersey; Melissa Emert, Stull Stull & 

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It 

has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 15

Brody, New York, New York; Caleb Marker, Zimmerman 

Reed LLP, Manhattan Beach, California; William B. 

Federman and Carin L. Marcussen, Federman & Sherwood, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; David Woloshin, Astor Weiss 

Kaplan & Mandel LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Todd 

Seth Garber, Finkelstein Blankenship Freipearson & Garber 

LLP, White Plains, New York; Abbas Kazerounian, 

Kazerouni Law Group APC, Costa Mesa, California; 

Stephen P. DeNittis, DeNittis Osefchen P.C., Marlton, New 

Jersey; James J. Jimmerson, Jimmerson Law Firm PC, Las 

Vegas, Nevada; Robert R. Duncan, Duncan Law Group 

LLC, Chicago, Illinois; Will Kemp and J. Randall Jones, 

Kemp Jones & Coulthard LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada; Thomas 

C. Cronin, Cronin & Co. Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; Todd M. 

Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon, Law Offices of Todd 

Friedman P.C., Beverly Hills, California; Francis M. 

Gregorek, Betsy C. Manifold, and Rachelle R. Rickert, Wolf 

Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, San Diego, 

California; Lee A. Weiss and Albert G. Lum, Burns Weiss 

LLP, Canoga Park, California; Shannon L. Hopkins, Nancy 

A. Kulesa, and Stephanie A. Bartone, Levi & Korsinsky 

LLP, Stamford, Connecticut; Thomas J. McKenna and 

Gregory M. Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New 

York, New York; Michael S. Agruss, Agruss Law Firm 

LLC, Chicago, Illinois; Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. and 

Amelia S. Newton, Zimmerman Law Offices P.C., Chicago, 

Illinois; Scott D. Egleston, Scott Egleston P.A., Miami, 

Florida; Zachary West, The Berman Law Group, Boca 

Raton, Florida; Cullin O’Brien, Cullin O’Brien Law P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Paul Kent Bramlett, Bramlett Law 

Offices, Nashville, Tennessee; Sandesh K. Viswanath, SKV 

Law Firm PLC, Southfield, Michigan; Leon Greenberg, Las 

Vegas, Nevada; Nelson Robles Diaz, Nelson Robles-Diaz 

Law Offices P.S.C., San Juan, Puerto Rico; T. Ryan 

Langley, Hodge & Langley Law Firm P.C., Spartanburg, 
16 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

South Carolina; Buddy S. Perry, Winchester, Tennessee; 

Eric M. Albritton, Anthony K. Bruster, and Shawn A. 

Latchford, Albritton Law Firm, Longview, Texas; Marcus 

R. Spagnoletti, Spagnoletti & Co., Houston, Texas; Edgardo 

M. Lopez, J. Flores Valdez, and Marlon B. Baldomero, 

Filipino Law Group, Los Angeles, California; for PlaintiffsAppellants.

Mark G. Tratos (argued), Greenberg Traurig LLP, Las 

Vegas, Nevada; Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna, Greenberg Traurig 

LLP, Chicago, Illinois; for Defendants-Appellees Floyd 

Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC.

Daniel M. Petrocelli (argued), Jeffrey A. Barker, David 

Marroso, and Esteban Rodriguez, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 

Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees 

Emmanuel Pacquiao, Top Rank Inc., Robert Arum, Michael 

Koncz, Todd DuBoef, and Home Box Office Inc.

OPINION

NGUYEN, Circuit Judge:

“The thrill of victory. The agony of defeat. The human 

drama of athletic competition.”1 Jim McKay’s famous 

phrase captures not only the excitement but also the 

uncertainty of competitive sports for athletes and fans alike. 

On any given day, an underdog may defeat a champion, and 

a highly anticipated match may end up a total bust. In the 

world of boxing, facing 42-1 odds, James “Buster” Douglas

achieved the unthinkable when he knocked out Mike Tyson, 

a world heavyweight champion who entered the ring 37-0 

1 Wide World of Sports (ABC television broadcast 1961).
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 17

with 33 knockouts. And the “Fight of the Century” between 

world-champion boxers Emmanuel “Manny” Pacquiao and 

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. turned out to be a “yawner,” which 

prompted this lawsuit.

Pacquiao and Mayweather squared off at the MGM 

Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas on May 2, 2015. After 

twelve rounds, Mayweather was declared the winner against 

“underdog” Pacquiao in a unanimous decision. During the 

post-fight press conference, Pacquiao revealed that he had 

injured his right shoulder in training camp nearly a month 

before. Plaintiffs in numerous jurisdictions seized on the 

injury disclosure and filed putative class-action complaints 

alleging that Pacquiao was “damaged goods,” that the fight 

was a “magnificent con,” and that they would not have 

purchased tickets had they known of Pacquiao’s injury. The 

district court dismissed the complaints in this multidistrict 

litigation on the ground that Plaintiffs have not suffered a 

cognizable legal injury because in short, they got what they 

paid for. We affirm.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background2

For several years before the long-awaited May 2, 2015 

fight, Pacquiao, an eight-division world champion, and 

Mayweather, an undefeated, five-division world champion, 

were “considered as and reported to be the best ‘pound-for2 The factual allegations are drawn from the California Plaintiffs’ 

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The parties agree that 

the factual allegations are, for all relevant purposes, substantially 

identical across Plaintiffs’ various complaints.
18 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

pound’ fighters in recent history, if not ever, in the world.” 

The two camps began exploring the possibility of a 

Mayweather-Pacquiao matchup as far back as 2009. In 

2015, a preliminary agreement was reached, and Pacquiao, 

Mayweather, their teams, and Home Box Office, Inc. 

(“HBO,” the fight broadcaster), began promoting the fight 

“as the biggest event in boxing history and the ‘Fight of the 

Century.’”

On or about April 4, 2015, Pacquiao tore the rotator cuff 

in his right shoulder during a sparring session. As a result, 

Pacquiao “had to discontinue sparring sessions during his 

training camp” and sent one of his sparring partners home 

with instructions not to disclose his injury to anyone. 

Pacquiao and his team considered postponing the fight but 

decided to proceed after consultation with his doctors.

Despite the injury, Pacquiao’s head trainer, Freddie 

Roach,3 remarked to media outlets that “he had never seen 

Pacquiao in ‘such pristine condition.’” Roach boasted that 

Pacquiao was in “top condition” and called him “a freak.” 

Robert Arum, the founder, Chairman, CEO, and Treasurer 

of Top Rank, Inc. (“Top Rank”), Pacquiao’s promotional 

company, publicly declared that Pacquiao is “better than I’ve 

ever seen him,” is “super confident and super relaxed,” and 

that “[y]ou’re going to see the best Manny.” In an interview 

with the Los Angeles Times, Roach stated that Pacquiao was 

training “with only his left arm” in order to “to sharpen the 

use of [his] ‘deadly’ left punch and to help him improve his 

footwork so he could cut off the ring against the ‘elusive’ 

Mayweather.” Roach also stated that Pacquiao “could beat 

[Mayweather] with his right arm tied behind his back.” And 

during a press conference, Roach stated that Pacquiao “is in 

3 Roach is not a party to this case.
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 19

great shape,” that he “had a great training camp,” and that he 

“is ready to go.” Pacquiao also said during that press 

conference that he was feeling “good, very good.”

Tickets to the fight went on sale on April 23, 2015, and 

sold out within minutes, commanding prices ranging from 

$1,500 to more than $7,500 per seat in the MGM Grand 

Garden Arena. On the secondary market, single tickets sold 

for as much as $231,000. Pay-per-view (“PPV”) access to 

the fight “broke the record for the most expensive boxing 

[PPV] event in history,” with commercial subscribers paying 

up to $10,000 to show the fight at their establishments.

On May 1, 2015, the day before the fight, Pacquiao and 

Michael Koncz, Pacquiao’s personal advisor, completed a 

Nevada State Athletic Commission (“NSAC”) pre-fight 

medical questionnaire under penalty of perjury. Pacquiao

represented on the questionnaire that he had not suffered any 

injury or serious medical condition of any kind. Three hours 

before the fight, however, a Top Rank employee informed 

the NSAC for the first time of Pacquiao’s shoulder injury 

and asked that Pacquiao be allowed to receive a pre-fight 

injection of an anti-inflammatory pain medication. The 

NSAC denied the treatment request because Pacquiao had 

not disclosed his injury on the questionnaire or in an 

otherwise timely manner. Ultimately, the NSAC physicians 

medically cleared Pacquiao to enter the ring.

After twelve rounds, each of the three judges declared 

Pacquiao the winner of between two and four rounds and 

Mayweather the overall winner of the match by unanimous 

decision. According to the Los Angeles Times, the fight was 

“a yawner involving damaged goods.” After the fight, 

Pacquiao, Arum, and Roach all stated publicly, for the first 

time, that they had known of Pacquiao’s shoulder injury for 

at least two weeks. Pacquiao also stated that he was “not 
20 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

really 100%” during the fight as a result of the injury. On 

May 5, 2015, Pacquiao and Top Rank issued a statement on 

Top Rank’s website confirming that Pacquiao had suffered 

an injury to his right shoulder but had decided to proceed 

with the fight “[w]ith the advice of his doctors.”

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew of the injury 

before the fight.4 In addition to Pacquiao’s camp, the 

Mayweather Defendants allegedly knew because they had a 

“mole” in Pacquiao’s training camp, and HBO knew, or 

should have known, because it produced a documentary, 

“Mayweather / Pacquiao: At Last,” which followed 

Pacquiao’s training leading up to the fight. Plaintiffs 

contend that Defendants’ failure to reveal Pacquiao’s injury 

was deceptive and misleading, which deprived the public of 

the ability to “make an informed purchasing decision . . .

based on all material facts.” They claim that they would not 

have purchased their tickets, PPV, or closed-circuit 

distribution packages if Defendants had not made 

“misleading . . . statements related to” or omitted material 

information regarding Pacquiao’s physical condition. 

Plaintiffs contend that the public “would naturally believe—

as they had been led to believe—that they were purchasing 

the right to see a contest between highly-conditioned, 

healthy athletes in peak physical condition and not suffering 

from any disability or serious injury.”

4 There are three sets of defendants in this case. The “Pacquiao

Defendants” include Pacquiao, Top Rank, Arum, Koncz, and Todd 

DuBoef, the President of Top Rank. The “Mayweather Defendants”

include Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC. Plaintiffs also 

name HBO as a defendant in this case. The Pacquiao Defendants, 

Mayweather Defendants, and HBO are collectively referred to as 

“Defendants.”
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 21

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in 

numerous jurisdictions against the Pacquiao Defendants, the 

Mayweather Defendants, and HBO. On August 17, 2015, 

the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

created an MDL and issued a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the Central 

District of California. On February 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed 

sixteen consolidated class-action complaints. The district 

court accepted these complaints as filed on July 7, 2016. At 

the time the district court ruled on the motions to dismiss, 

the MDL consisted of 26 individual actions, 13 jurisdictionspecific complaints filed on behalf of putative classes of 

PPV purchasers, a single complaint filed on behalf of a 

nationwide putative class of ticket holders, and a single 

complaint filed on behalf of a nationwide putative class, 

including California and New York subclasses, of 

commercial entities that purchased closed-circuit 

distribution rights to televise the fight.

On August 25, 2017, the district court dismissed all 

complaints with prejudice. The district court held that 

Plaintiffs suffered no cognizable injury to a legally protected 

interest because “the alleged misrepresentations and 

omissions implicate the core of athletic competition” as 

opposed to “business outcomes and financial performance.” 

Plaintiffs timely appealed.

II.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review “dismissals for failure to state a claim under Rule 

12(b)(6)” de novo. McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State 
22 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

Common Ret. Fund, Inc., 339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2003).

III.

DISCUSSION

Because our circuit has not considered the rights of a 

spectator disappointed by a sporting event, we begin by 

reviewing existing case law for guidance before turning to 

the allegations in this case.

A.

1.

A majority of courts that have considered claims brought 

by dissatisfied sports fans follow what is known as the 

“license approach.” Under that approach, a ticket holder 

enjoys only the right to view the ticketed event, and therefore 

no cognizable injury arises simply because the event did not 

meet fan expectations.

Two of our sister circuits have upheld the dismissal, for 

failure to state a claim, of complaints filed by unhappy 

spectators. In Bowers v. Fédération Internationale de 

l’Automobile, Formula One race attendees filed a putative 

class action seeking the return of their expenses because, of 

the twenty cars that were expected to race, fourteen 

withdrew due to tire problems. 489 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 

2007). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the 

action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be 

granted. Analyzing the plaintiffs’ breach-of- contract claim, 

the court observed that “most states agree that the seller 

contracts only to admit the plaintiff to its property at a given 

time,” not “to provide the spectacle.” Id. at 321. Thus, the 
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 23

seller agrees “only to license the plaintiff to enter and ‘view 

whatever event transpire[s].’” Id. (alteration in original) 

(quoting Castillo v. Tyson, 701 N.Y.S.2d 423, 425 ((N.Y. 

App. Div. 2000)). Ultimately, the court rested its holding on 

narrower grounds, stating that even assuming the plaintiffs 

possessed “a contractual right to a regulation Formula One 

race (and further assuming a right to have the race stewards 

properly interpret the applicable regulations on the spot), 

they got such a race here.” Id. The court explained its 

rationale:

[W]hile every competitive sport is built 

around the presumption that the players will 

try hard to win, a contest is not invalidated by 

a player’s poor effort. A team cannot claim 

that a loss does not count because one of its 

members was dogging it. And once it is 

established that the plaintiffs received a 

regulation race, they admit that they had no 

additional right to a race that was exciting or 

drivers that competed well.

Id. at 322. Because the Formula One racing regulations do 

not impose a “minimum car” requirement, and there was “no 

reason to claim . . . that no race occurred,” dismissal was 

appropriate. Id.

Similarly, in Mayer v. Belichick, the Third Circuit 

affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action brought by 

a season ticket holder against the New England Patriots in 

response to the scandal known as “Spygate.” 605 F.3d 223, 

225 (3d Cir. 2010). The plaintiff asserted contract and tort 

claims, including fraud, alleging that during a game against 

the New York Jets, the Patriots surreptitiously videotaped 

their opponents’ sideline signals to use that information to 
24 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

their strategic advantage later in the season. This conduct 

allegedly violated the “rights of New York Jets ticketholders who fully anticipated and contracted for a ticket to 

observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws, 

regulations and NFL rules.” Id.

The Third Circuit framed the dispositive question as 

whether the plaintiff “stated an actionable injury (or, in other 

words, a legally protected right or interest)” arising out of 

the challenged conduct. Id. at 231. It then held that the 

plaintiff “possessed either a license or, at best, a contractual 

right to enter Giants Stadium and to have a seat from which 

to watch a professional football game,” but nothing more. 

Id. at 236. Because there was no allegation that this right 

had been injured in any way, the plaintiff had “suffered no 

cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest.” Id.; 

see also id. (“Here, [the plaintiff] undeniably saw football

games played by two NFL teams. This therefore is not a case 

where, for example, the game or games were cancelled, 

strike replacement players were used, or the professional 

football teams themselves did something nonsensical or 

absurd, such as deciding to play basketball.”).

Most state courts have adopted a similar approach. See 

id. at 231 (observing that the license approach “has, for some 

time, been followed throughout the United States and in 

other common law jurisdictions throughout the world”). For 

example, in Castillo v. Tyson, an appellate division of a New 

York state court affirmed the dismissal of putative class 

claims, including fraud, arising out of Mike Tyson’s 

infamous fight with Evander Holyfield in which Tyson was 

disqualified for biting off part of Holyfield’s ear. 

701 N.Y.S.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). The plaintiffs 

argued that Tyson’s disqualification interfered with their 

right to “view a ‘legitimate heavyweight title fight’ fought 
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 25

‘in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations’ of 

the governing boxing commission.” Id. at 424. Castillo

rejected this argument, reasoning that disqualification is “a 

possibility that a fight fan can reasonably expect,” and the 

defendants’ public statements “predicting a ‘sensational 

victory’ and the ‘biggest fight of all time’” did not negate 

this possibility. Id. at 424–25. Although Castillo does not 

discuss the license approach, the dismissal was premised on 

the ground “that plaintiffs received what they paid for, 

namely, the right to view whatever event transpired.” Id. 

at 425 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Most recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court held in Le 

Mon v. National Football League that season ticket holders 

had no “right of action” to challenge a referee’s missed call 

during the 2019 NFC Championship game between the New 

Orleans Saints and the Los Angeles Rams. 277 So. 3d 1166, 

1167–68 & n.3 (La. 2019). Adopting the license approach, 

the court concluded that the “plaintiffs’ purchase of a ticket 

merely granted them the right of entry and a seat at the 

game.” Id. at 1168. Because the alleged missed call by the 

referee in no way interfered with these rights, dismissal of 

the plaintiffs’ fraud and deceptive trade practices claims was 

warranted. Le Mon reasoned more generally that “public 

policy considerations weigh in favor of restricting the rights 

of spectators to bring actions based on the conduct of 

officials of professional sporting leagues.” Id. (concluding 

that “the courts are not the proper forum to litigate such 

disputes”).

2.

Plaintiffs acknowledge the weight of authority against 

them, but characterize themselves as “defrauded consumers” 

who have suffered a legally cognizable injury rather than 

“mere ‘disappointed’ sports fans.” In support of this 
26 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

argument, Plaintiffs primarily rely on a different line of cases 

brought by season ticket holders. See Charpentier v. L.A. 

Rams Football Co., 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 115 (Ct. App. 1999); 

Beder v. Cleveland Browns, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. 

App. 1998); Skalbania v. Simmons, 443 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1982).

In Charpentier, a season ticket holder brought a putative 

class action alleging that the Rams falsely represented that 

they had no plans to leave Anaheim, which inflated the sale 

of season tickets. 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 117–18. The plaintiff 

claimed that he was injured when he purchased tickets for 

the 1994 season because he sought to reserve the location of 

his season tickets for future years when the Rams would be 

a better team. Id. at 118. The California Court of Appeal 

affirmed the dismissal of some of the plaintiff’s claims but 

allowed the fraud claim to proceed. Id. at 122–23. The court 

reasoned that season ticket holders may well have elected 

not to purchase season tickets for a losing team had they 

known that the team would be moving out of state and that 

they would be unable to renew their tickets for future 

seasons. Id. at 123.

Plaintiffs also cite Beder, in which triable issues of 

material fact precluded entering summary judgment on a 

fraud claim brought by season ticket holders. 717 N.E.2d at 

722–23. There, ticket holders challenged the Brown’s move 

from Cleveland to Baltimore after the team’s owner falsely 

stated that he would not move the team. Id. at 718, 722; cf. 

Skalbania, 443 N.E.2d at 359–60 (suggesting, in considering 

a class certification order, that season ticket holders may 

have viable fraud claims against a professional hockey team 

that closed down less than halfway through its season after 

inducing season ticket purchases by falsely representing that 
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 27

the “tickets were good for a full season of . . . league 

competition”).

B.

Turning now to this case, we first address Plaintiffs’ 

argument that, like the season ticket holders in Charpentier 

and Beder, they have alleged a cognizable claim because 

they would not have purchased tickets to the fight but for 

Defendants’ misrepresentations. We do not find the season 

ticket-holder cases to have much persuasive value here. 

Importantly, the claims asserted in those cases were not 

premised on an athlete’s performance on the tracks, on the 

field, or in the ring. Fans of the Rams and the Browns 

purchased season tickets with the reasonable expectation 

that the games would be played in a certain location, Beder, 

717 N.E.2d at 718, or that they would be able to renew their 

reserved-seat locations for the upcoming season, 

Charpentier, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 117. Here, although boxing 

fans—like all sports fans—can reasonably expect a 

regulation match, they also reasonably anticipate a measure 

of unpredictability that makes spectator sports exciting.

Plaintiffs in this case paid to see a boxing match between 

two of the top fighters in the world, Mayweather and 

Pacquiao. Each was medically cleared to fight by NSAC 

physicians before he entered the ring. Ultimately, a threejudge panel declared Mayweather the overall winner of the 

match, but each of the judges declared Pacquiao the winner 

of between two and four rounds.5 And although the match 

5 Official Scorecard: Floyd Mayweather v. Manny Pacquiao, Nev.

State Athletic Comm’n (May 2, 2015), http://boxing.nv.gov/uploadedFi

les/boxingnvgov/content/home/features/Corrected_May-v-Pac_scoreca

rd-tickets.pdf.
28 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

may have lacked the drama worthy of the pre-fight hype, 

Pacquiao’s shoulder condition did not prevent him from 

going the full twelve rounds, the maximum number 

permitted for professional boxing contests. See ABC 

Regulatory Guidelines, Ass’n of Boxing Comm’ns and 

Combative Sports (July 27, 2005), https://www.abcboxing.

com/abc-regulatory-guidelines/. Plaintiffs therefore 

essentially got what they paid for—a full-length regulation 

fight between these two boxing legends.

Even though the license approach may not map perfectly 

onto the allegations in this case,6 we need not adopt that 

approach to conclude that Plaintiffs suffered no legally 

cognizable injury here. Whatever subjective expectations 

Plaintiffs had before the match did not negate the very real 

possibility that the match would not, for one reason or 

another, live up to those expectations.7

6 Plaintiffs incorrectly characterize the license approach cases as

“mak[ing] clear that the license approach has no application” to fraud 

claims. In fact, fraud claims were also asserted in numerous license 

approach cases, and no court that has adopted that approach has allowed 

claims that sound in tort to proceed. See Mayer, 605 F.3d at 228, 230 

(affirming dismissal of common law and statutory fraud claims because 

the plaintiff “failed to set forth a legally cognizable right, interest, or 

injury”); Castillo, 701 N.Y.S.2d at 424–25 (affirming dismissal of fraud 

claim for failure to state a claim); Le Mon, 277 So. 3d at 1168 (same).

7 This point is underscored by the nature of the statements 

Defendants made about Pacquiao’s physical condition in advance of the 

match. Each was akin to puffery, which is generally not actionable. See 

Glen Holly Entm’t, Inc. v. Tektronix Inc., 343 F.3d 1000, 1015 (9th Cir. 

2003) (affirming dismissal of fraud and negligent misrepresentation 

claims premised on “generalized, vague and unspecified assertions” 

because they “constitut[ed] mere ‘puffery’ upon which a reasonable 

consumer could not rely”). Although Pacquiao responded “No” to a 

question in the NSAC pre-fight medical questionnaire asking whether he 
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 29

As the Seventh Circuit explained in Bowers, Formula 

One racing fans expect that, on any given day, numerous 

events may prevent a competition with a full complement of 

twenty cars. See 489 F.3d at 324 (describing “dangerous 

track conditions, a driver’s sudden illness, an accident in 

shipping a car to the track, any number of things, including 

the possibility that, for some reason, a driver might refuse to 

race” as factors that might result in a competition involving 

fewer cars). In boxing, too, many factors may prevent a fulllength match, or one that is as exciting as fans hope. A boxer 

might, for example, tear a muscle or foul out in the first 

round. Or a referee might inadvertently come between the 

boxers, preventing one from landing a knockout punch. As 

in Bowers, these are all possibilities that boxing fans can 

expect. See Castillo, 701 N.Y.S.2d at 424 (describing 

disqualification as “a possibility that a fight fan can 

reasonably expect”).

We find unpersuasive Plaintiffs’ remaining argument 

that their claims “are no different than claims alleging 

fraudulent inducement to procure sales of any other goods or 

service.” In a typical consumer-protection case, consumers 

form beliefs about what they can expect by relying on public 

representations regarding the features of the good or service 

at issue. An advertisement that states that a certain model of 

a car is equipped with a sunroof and an in-dash navigation 

system, for example, gives rise to the reasonable expectation 

that the model in fact has both features. If the car lacks one 

or both, consumers might bring suit, alleging that they were 

“had any injury to [his] shoulders . . . that needed evaluation or 

examination,” that questionnaire was not made available to the public 

before the match. Accordingly, Plaintiffs could not have relied on it.
30 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

injured because the advertisements misrepresented the car’s 

features.

These principles do not apply with equal force to claims 

brought by fans in the sports context. A sports match or 

game, unlike a consumer good or service, is defined only by 

a set of rules that are well-known to fans; the rest is 

determined by how the match is fought or the game is 

played. Cf. Bowers, 489 F.3d at 321 (characterizing a 

Formula One race as a “spectacle” that depends on “the 

performers and their scheduled performance”). Nor can it 

be said that fan expectations are uniform: a move or play that

exceeds one fan’s expectations disappoints the next. See 

Mayer, 605 F.3d at 235 n.4 (observing that various cases 

have recognized “the absence of a cause of action arising out 

of bad performance or, more generally, the subjective 

expectations of the ticket-holders”). The “human drama of 

athletic competition”8 distinguishes this case from the 

garden-variety consumer protection cases.

We note also that in seeking to hold Defendants liable 

for alleged omissions and misrepresentations regarding 

Pacquiao’s physical condition, Plaintiffs’ theory of liability 

is potentially boundless. The nature of competitive sports is 

such that athletes commonly compete—and sometimes 

dramatically win—despite some degree of physical pain and 

injury.9 Taken to its logical extreme, Plaintiffs’ theory 

8 Wide World of Sports (1961).

9 In the 1996 Olympics, for example, Kerri Strug helped U.S. 

Women’s Gymnastics win its first Olympic gold medal in the team event 

by landing her vault with an injured ankle. Johnette Howard, True Grit: 

In a Dramatic Finish, the U.S. Women Nailed Russia for the Team Gold, 

Sports Illustrated (July 24, 1996), https://www.si.com/vault/1996/07/24

/216315/us-women-gymnastics-gold-1996-olympics-atlanta-kerri-strug. 
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 31

would require all professional athletes to affirmatively 

disclose any injury—no matter how minor—or risk a slew 

of lawsuits from disappointed fans. Such a result would 

fundamentally alter the nature of competitive sports: 

Opponents would undoubtedly use such information to their 

strategic advantage, resulting in fewer games and matches 

won through fair play, and gone would be the days of 

athletes publicly declaring their strength and readiness for 

fear of a lawsuit alleging that fans were misled.

Plaintiffs’ theory of liability also presents serious 

workability problems. Would athletes be required to make 

an affirmative disclosure regarding any discomfort they felt, 

or only with respect to diagnosed injuries? Would it matter 

whether a diagnosed injury caused an athlete no pain? And 

how far in advance of a game or match would such 

disclosures be required?

As the Third Circuit explained in Mayer:

At the very least, a ruling in favor of [the 

aggrieved ticket holder] could lead to other 

disappointed fans filing lawsuits because of 

“a blown call” that apparently caused their 

team to lose or any number of allegedly 

improper acts committed by teams, coaches, 

players, referees and umpires, and others. 

This Court refuses to countenance a course of 

action that would only further burden already 

And Curt Schilling led the Boston Red Sox to a victory in Game 6 of the 

2004 American League Championship Series with a torn tendon, an 

important step toward the team’s first World Series victory in 86 years. 

Ian Browne, Schilling’s Bloody Sock the Bridge to History, MLB News 

(Oct. 19, 2014), https://www.mlb.com/news/curt-schillings-bloodysock-the-bridge-to-history/c-98978666.
32 IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION

limited judicial resources and force 

professional sports organizations and related 

individuals to expend money, time, and 

resources to defend against such litigation.

605 F.3d at 237.

Like the racing fans in Bowers who saw only six out of 

the twenty cars that were expected to race, or the boxing fans 

in Castillo who witnessed Tyson’s shameful disqualification 

for biting off part of his opponent’s ear, Plaintiffs here have 

no cognizable claim arising out of a performance by 

Pacquiao that fell short of viewer expectations.10 See

Bowers, 489 F.3d at 322 (“[O]nce it is established that the 

plaintiffs received a regulation race, they . . . had no 

additional right to a race that was exciting or drivers that 

competed well.”); Castillo, 701 N.Y.S.2d at 425 (concluding 

that the “plaintiffs received what they paid for, namely, the 

right to view whatever event transpired” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

10 Our ruling does not leave Plaintiffs without any recourse, see 

Mayer, 605 F.3d at 236–37, as Plaintiffs are free not to support the 

NSAC, Mayweather, Pacquiao, their promotional teams, or HBO. See 

Seko Air Freight, Inc. v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 22 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 

1994) (noting that although a disappointing performance by the Chicago 

Cubs does not entitle a season ticket holder to a refund, a ticket holder 

retains the ability to “head south for Comiskey Park and the White Sox” 

in lieu of Wrigley Field); Bowers v. Fédération Internationale de 

l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 862 (S.D. Ind. 2006) (“Any further 

grievance or disgruntlement on the part of Plaintiffs must be pursued, if 

at all, in the marketplace, through fan withdrawal of money and 

attendance at future race events.”), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007).
IN RE PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING LITIGATION 33

The district court was therefore correct to knock out 

Plaintiffs’ complaints.

AFFIRMED.