The Howlin’ Wolf sues StubHub over alleged ‘false scarcity’ ticket advertising

New Orleans venue The Howlin’ Wolf sues StubHub over ‘false scarcity’ ticket ads, citing a $24.94 ticket listed at $76

September 16, 2026 By Mandy Dalugdug

The Howlin’ Wolf , an independent music venue in New Orleans , is suing StubHub over the way the resale platform advertises tickets to its shows.

Continue to article...

The venue claims StubHub tells buyers that tickets are nearly gone while the venue itself still has its full allocation on sale, at a fraction of the price.

The complaint was filed on Thursday ( September 10 ) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana , in New Orleans , by Cat and Dog Inc. , which trades as The Howlin’ Wolf . A copy obtained by MBW can be read in full here .

The venue runs two rooms in the Warehouse District: a main room holding about 1,200 people, and The Den , holding about 120 .

The complaint’s central example concerns a Hot 8 Brass Band show at The Den tonight ( September 16 ).

At 8:15am on September 7 , the filing says, all 100 general admission tickets for that show were still unsold on the venue’s own website, priced at $24.94 including fees.

At the same moment, StubHub was listing the show at $76 including fees, beneath a banner reading “Only 1% of tickets left,” according to the complaint.

A label on the listing itself read “Only 4 left,” StubHub screenshots in the filing show.

The complaint calls this StubHub ’s “False Scarcity” tactic.

“This tactic is based on a fabricated impression that tickets will shortly be unavailable when there is, in reality, sufficient inventory, adding phrases such as ‘Only 1% of tickets left!’ or ‘Last Tickets!’ to ensure that buyers buy then and there, at whatever price StubHub advertises, or lose out on seeing their favorite band, comedian, or poet,” the filing reads.

> “This tactic is based on a fabricated impression that tickets will shortly be unavailable when there is, in reality, sufficient inventory…” The Howlin’ Wolf ’s complaint

Behind that, the complaint alleges, sits a practice it says is widespread across StubHub : resellers listing tickets they have not bought.

“In reality, many of the entities reselling event tickets on StubHub ’s platforms do not own them either – not at the time those tickets are listed and advertised, and not at the time those tickets are sold to consumers,” the complaint states. “This ‘list-first, sell-before-acquire’ practice is known as ‘speculative’ or ‘spec’ selling.

“While StubHub ’s policies nominally prohibit resellers from spec-selling, those policies are rarely if ever enforced, despite the company being fully aware of this practice. A speculative seller who is ultimately unable to acquire an actual, valid ticket for the event leaves the consumer holding what is, in substance, a ‘ghost ticket’ – a purported ticket unsupported by any corresponding, valid inventory.

“Because this defect is frequently undetectable until the consumer arrives at the venue, the practical consequence of spec-selling is that a ticketholder can be turned away and denied entry at the door , despite having paid full price in the good-faith belief that she purchased a valid ticket.”

The filing argues StubHub has no commercial reason to check what a venue has left, because it books revenue when a sale goes through rather than when a ticket changes hands.

“Based on Plaintiff’s experience, StubHub undertakes no effort to obtain actual ticket availability or inventory levels from the venue itself,” the complaint states. “StubHub advertises ticket availability that it has no incentive to find out, let alone verify, are actually available.”

A second comparison covers a Hot 8 Brass Band show in the main room on September 13 .

The venue’s all-in price for that show was again $24.94 . StubHub was quoting $58 a ticket before tax – $124 for two once tax was added – under the words “Lowest price! Only 4 tickets left at this price in this section.”

The complaint labels that the “False Superlative” tactic. It alleges a third, the “Fictitious Former Price,” in which a struck-through figure sits beside a lower one to suggest a discount that vanishes against The Howlin’ Wolf ’s real price.

StubHub knows that difference, the filing argues.

The complaint states: “ StubHub ’s use and placement of these types of inconspicuous hover-and-click tooltips shows that it understands the distinction between tickets that are ‘scarce on our site’ and tickets that are simply ‘scarce for this event’; StubHub ’s tooltip language – e.g., ‘Last remaining listing in this section currently available for sale on our site’ – captures that exact distinction.”

The complaint does not name a damages figure, saying the sum will be calculated from StubHub ’s transaction records and the venue’s own ticketing data once the two sides exchange documents.

On its federal false advertising claim, The Howlin’ Wolf asks the court for up to three times its actual damages, plus StubHub ’s profits, in amounts to be set by the court, along with costs and attorney fees.

Its Louisiana claim seeks actual damages, attorney fees and costs, and an order stopping the practices, with triple damages available if the state’s Attorney General has put – or later puts – StubHub on notice.

The venue also wants the court to order StubHub to disclose four things on its listings: how many tickets are actually available on its own platforms; that any scarcity claim applies to that inventory rather than to the event as a whole; the full all-in price where tickets first appear; and that the same tickets may be on sale from the venue.

> “We believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this case.” StubHub spokesperson

Beyond price, the filing sets out a structural complaint about who The Howlin’ Wolf ’s customer is.

“Every resale of The Howlin’ Wolf event tickets on StubHub severs Plaintiff’s relationship with the actual fan attending the event,” the complaint states.

The reseller, not the fan, becomes the venue’s buyer of record, leaving The Howlin’ Wolf unable to contact the ticketholder when a show moves or is canceled.

A StubHub Spokesperson told MBW: “We believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this case.”

The complaint leans on regulatory action StubHub has already resolved elsewhere.

In April 2026 , StubHub Holdings , the platform’s publicly traded parent, agreed to pay USD $10 million – to be refunded to affected buyers – to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges that it advertised ticket prices without disclosing mandatory fees up front.

The filing also cites commitments StubHub ’s UK arm gave Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in August 2020 , among them a promise to “disclose clearly and prominently that the tickets available on the website represent the tickets available for sale on the website and does not represent the totality of tickets available for the event.”

That UK business was divested in 2021 , after the CMA found that viagogo ’s 2020 acquisition of StubHub would lessen competition and ordered the international arm sold. The combined group is the business now known as StubHub Holdings ; the UK operation has run separately ever since, and was fined close to GBP £900,000 ($1.2 million) over undisclosed fees in June 2026 .

“There is no reason – other than the company’s perpetuation of its own highly-profitable false-advertising strategy – that StubHub cannot do so now with respect to ticket availability and scarcity in the United States , including Louisiana ,” the complaint states.

The Howlin’ Wolf is the second independent venue to sue StubHub on this theory in under a month.

Stone Church in Brattleboro, Vermont , filed a similar false advertising case in New York federal court on August 17 , using the same labels for StubHub ’s tactics, Vermont Public reported. That case, which also alleges trademark infringement, seeks more than $5 million in damages, according to trade reports; The Howlin’ Wolf ’s complaint makes no trademark claim.

Responding to that case, StubHub said: “We believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this case.”

In July , StubHub and its founder and CEO Eric Baker were hit with a proposed class action over the platform’s ties to large-scale ticket resellers – ties the company says are set out in its SEC filings.

Speculative selling has drawn legislative attention too: Illinois banned “ghost ticketing” in June, barring resellers from listing tickets they do not hold.

Howie Kaplan , who owns The Howlin’ Wolf and manages the Rebirth Brass Band , told Hypebot the case is not aimed at ordinary fan-to-fan resale.

> “This is really about protecting venues, protecting fans, protecting artists. And we keep playing this game like it’s okay to sell something you don’t have.” Howie Kaplan , The Howlin’ Wolf (Via Hypebot )

“This is really about protecting venues, protecting fans, protecting artists. And we keep playing this game like it’s okay to sell something you don’t have,” Kaplan said.

He said one buyer paid $96 for a $25 ticket to a Howlin’ Wolf show the venue had never listed, advertised under the wrong date.

Music Business Worldwide

News United States Cat and Dog Inc. lawsuits Stubhub The Howlin’ Wolf

Related Posts

Judge sends proposed class action against StubHub and CEO Eric Baker into private arbitration

_Originally reported by [Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/new-orleans-venue-the-howlin-wolf-sues-stubhub-over-false-scarcity-ticket-ads-citing-a-24-94-ticket-listed-at-76/)._