IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN TEZAK, on behalf of himself and )

all others similarly situated, )

) Case No. 20-cv-2482

Plaintiff, )

) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

v. )

)

LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, )

INC., et al., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John Tezak brought this class action lawsuit against defendants Live Nation 

Entertainment, Ticketmaster, LLC, and associated companies alleging various state law claims, 

including breach of contract and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business 

Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, among others. Before the Court is defendants’ motion to compel 

arbitration brought under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4. For the following 

reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion.

Background

Tezak’s complaint is based on his purchase of tickets to a March 17, 2020 Blake Shelton 

concert at the Allstate Arena in Rosemont, Illinois, that was postponed indefinitely due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. In order to purchase tickets, Tezak created an account on Ticketmaster’s 

mobile website. By using the website, Tezak agreed to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use, which in 

include:

ANY DISPUTE OR CLAIM RELATING IN ANY WAY TO YOUR USE OF 

THE SITE, OR TO PRODUCTS OR SERVICES SOLD, DISTRIBUTED, 

ISSUED, OR SERVICED BY US OR THROUGH US, WILL BE 

RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION, RATHER 

THAN IN COURT[.]

Case: 1:20-cv-02482 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:186
2

...

The arbitration agreement in these Terms is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act 

(FAA), including its procedural provisions, in all respects. This means that the FAA 

governs, among other things, the interpretation and enforcement of this arbitration 

agreement and all of its provisions, including, without limitation, the class action 

waiver discussed below. State arbitration laws do not govern in any respect.

This arbitration agreement is intended to be broadly interpreted and will survive 

termination of these Terms. The arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court 

or agency, shall have exclusive authority to the extent permitted by law to resolve all 

disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or 

formation of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any claim that all or any 

part of this Agreement is void or voidable. 

...

We each agree that the arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person’s claims 

and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding, 

and that any dispute resolution proceedings will be conducted only on an individual 

basis and not in a class, consolidated or representative action. YOU AGREE TO 

WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A 

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION.

(R. 18, Ex. 6, Terms of Use.)

Legal Standard

The FAA requires enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. Before 

compelling arbitration, the Court must determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. Henry

Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 524, 530, 202 L.Ed.2d 480 (2019). 

In determining whether an agreement’s arbitration clause controls, federal courts apply state-law 

principles of contract formation. Gupta v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, 934 F.3d 705, 710 (7th 

Cir. 2019).

Discussion

Here, Tezak does not dispute that he affirmatively agreed to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use 

when he purchased the Blake Shelton concert tickets. Instead, Tezak attempts to create an 

ambiguity to show that the parties did not clearly and unmistakably delegate the threshold 

arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. See Henry Schein, 139 S.Ct. at 530. In support of his 

Case: 1:20-cv-02482 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:187
3

argument, Tezak relies on language in the parties’ agreement citing to the Illinois Ticket Sale and 

Resale Act:

[P]ursuant to the Illinois Ticket Sale and Resale Act, 815 ILCS 414/1.5 et seq., if 

your dispute regards the re-sale of a ticket for any event located in the State of 

Illinois, then the following applies: You may submit complaints to JAMS under its 

rules and procedures, as outlined in this section, and any such claims shall be decided 

by an independent arbitrator in accordance with these Terms. You also agree to 

submit to the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois for any complaints involving a 

ticketed event held in Illinois. If you have an inquiry regarding a ticket re-sale 

transaction made for any event located in Illinois, please contact us at 550 W. Van 

Buren Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60607 or (877) 446-9450.

(Ex. 6, Terms of Use). 

By the statute’s own terms, this resale provision applies only to resale purchases, not 

purchases made directly through Ticketmaster. Put differently, the language in the statute

incorporated into the Terms of Use, is not susceptible to more than one meaning, and thus is not 

ambiguous as Tezak claims. See Thompson v. Gordon, 948 N.E.2d 39, 47, 349 Ill.Dec. 936, 944, 241 

Ill.2d 428, 441 (Ill. 2011). Here, Tezak’s purchase of tickets for the Shelton Blake concert were 

original sale, primary market tickets sold by Ticketmaster on behalf of the venue. As such, the 

Illinois resale provision and its Illinois-specific terms are not relevant to Tezak’s purchase.

The Court thus turns to Tezak’s argument that the parties’ agreement does not establish by 

clear and unmistakable evidence that they delegated the threshold arbitrability questions to the 

arbitrator. Here, the Terms of Use unequivocally state: “The arbitrator, and not any federal, state or 

local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to the extent permitted by law to resolve all 

disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of 

this Agreement[.]” This unambiguous language meets the requisite “clear and unmistakable” 

standard. In short, Tezak and defendants chose to delegate questions of arbitrability to the 

arbitrator. Tezak’s arguments based on Illinois’ resale statute and the similar Terms of Use language

Case: 1:20-cv-02482 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:188
4

that contain Illinois-specific terms do not change this analysis or create an ambiguity because these 

provisions are not relevant under the circumstances. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [16]. 

Civil case terminated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/10/2021

Entered: _____________________________

 SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN

 United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-02482 Document #: 28 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:189