Opinion ID: 4363631
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background and Prior Opinions

Text: We first assessed this case in 2016 and concluded that Finkelman lacked standing because he had not alleged that the NFL’s allegedly unlawful practice of withholding more than 5% of the available tickets for the Super Bowl caused price inflation on the resale market. We then remanded to the District Court to consider whether amendment was appropriate. The District Court granted Finkelman leave to amend, and then again dismissed the case. In 2017, the case came before us for the second time. We considered both the standing issue and the District Court’s conclusion that Finkelman did not allege a violation of the Ticket Law because the NFL’s actions were better understood as “allocating” tickets to NFL teams and league insiders rather than “withholding” tickets from the general public. While we determined that Finkelman had met the Article III standing requirements, we certified the second issue to the New Jersey Supreme Court: (1) Does Plaintiff Josh Finkelman properly plead a claim under the New Jersey Ticket Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-35.1? 1 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-35.1. 3