Commerce Commission v Viagogo AG

Viagogo did not usually sell the ticket itself. It operated a marketplace where another person listed the ticket. Before purchase, the consumer could not inspect the ticket or see its face value, the seller's identity, whether the seller was a broker, or the seller's record of failed delivery or invalid tickets.

Those information gaps made the platform's own presentation especially important. Buyers had to decide whether to trust the listing based on the search ad, website labels, urgency messages, price display and guarantee wording that Viagogo controlled.

The Commerce Commission's case was not based on one sentence. Google advertising could make Viagogo look like an official or authorised ticket source. The website did not adequately disclose its resale status and used statements about demand or limited availability to create urgency.

Ticket prices increased when fees were added later in checkout. Guarantee wording suggested customers could rely on valid entry, although the remedy might be a refund after an invalid ticket had already caused them to miss the event and incur travel costs.

Viagogo's standard terms required consumers to bring disputes in Swiss courts under Swiss law. Viagogo, however, retained more flexibility to take action against a customer in the customer's own country.

The High Court declared the one-sided term unfair under section 46L of the Fair Trading Act. Orders required the terms for New Zealand consumers to allow disputes to be dealt with through New Zealand courts.

Start by naming each role clearly: platform, seller, buyer and payment provider. Show the seller's identity and whether the item is resale stock. Put the total unavoidable price beside the listing before the customer is invested in checkout.

Marketing, product and legal teams should test the complete journey on mobile and desktop. Review the first search impression, listing page, scarcity labels, basket, payment screen, confirmation and complaints process as one system.