It was billed as “The Fight of the Century.” The hype was insane. And so were the ticket prices. But in the end, the May 2, 2015 fight in Las Vegas, between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, was a dud. The Los Angeles Times called it “a yawner.”
The fight went all twelve rounds and Mayweather won. Afterwards, it was learned publicity that Pacquiao had suffered a serious shoulder injury a month before the fight. So, as is wont to happen, lots of putative class actions were filed by pay-per-view customers, ticker purchasers and others who lost money against the fighters, promoters and broadcaster, HBO. Indeed, an MDL was created for the suits.
The theory of liability, as the court described it: “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.’”
The district court knocked out the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed. In Alessi v. Mayweather (In re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litig.), No. 17-56366 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2019), the court noted that “[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.”
