The District of Columbia’s drip pricing lawsuit against StubHub, filed by Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb on July 30, 2024 in DC Superior Court, accuses the resale platform of hiding mandatory fees until the final checkout screen and inflating what DC consumers actually paid for tickets. The complaint, District of Columbia v. StubHub, Inc., estimates StubHub pulled roughly $118 million in undisclosed fees from DC buyers since 2015 and seeks restitution, civil penalties, and a court order stopping the practice.
What the AG Says StubHub Did
The complaint describes a checkout funnel built to commit the buyer before showing the real price. A ticket would be advertised at an attention-grabbing base figure. The shopper then clicked through what the AG’s office characterized as more than a dozen pages before mandatory “fulfillment and service” fees appeared at the end, often adding around 40 percent to the listed price. An Usher ticket listed at $178 carried a $70 per-ticket fee. A Rachel Bloom show listed at $92 added $38 in fees.
A countdown timer ran on the page while the shopper moved through those screens. The AG alleged the timer manufactured a “false sense of urgency,” making it harder for buyers to abandon the purchase and check prices elsewhere. By the time the real total appeared, the complaint argues, the buyer had already sunk enough time into the process that walking away felt like a loss.
The fee labels themselves were vague, according to the complaint. StubHub called the charges “fulfillment and service fees” without explaining what the terms meant or how the amounts were set. The AG’s office contends the fees tracked ticket price and supply and demand rather than any actual service or fulfillment cost.
StubHub’s Own Experiment
One of the complaint’s central allegations is that StubHub knew exactly what drip pricing did to shoppers because it had tested the question itself. Between 2014 and 2015, the company used an all-in pricing model that included fees in the displayed price. It then ran a randomized experiment, assigning some users to the all-in model and others to a drip-pricing version where fees surfaced only at checkout. A field study led by UC Berkeley Haas professor Steven Tadelis and co-authors reported the results: users shown hidden fees spent about 21 percent more on tickets and were 14 percent more likely to complete a purchase, even though they were 45 percent less likely to finish once the fees appeared. The higher spending outweighed the dropoff.
StubHub rolled drip pricing out across the platform after that test. The DC AG points to this sequence as a deliberate, data-driven choice to raise revenue by obscuring the true price.
The Legal Claims and the Relief Sought
The suit brings claims under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The AG alleges StubHub engaged in deceptive and unfair acts by concealing mandatory fees until the end of a long purchase flow, failing to explain what the fees covered or how they were calculated, and using design pressure like the countdown timer to push consumers through checkout.
The AG asks the Superior Court for three forms of relief:
- An injunction ordering StubHub to stop the deceptive pricing practices.
- Restitution for DC consumers harmed by the drip-pricing model.
- Civil penalties for the violations.
The conduct at issue reaches back to September 2015, when StubHub rolled out drip pricing after the internal experiment.
StubHub’s Response
StubHub rejected the allegations. The company said it was “disappointed that the DC Attorney General is targeting StubHub when our user experience is consistent with the law, our competitors’ practices, and the broader e-commerce sector.” It said it was “committed to creating a transparent, secure, and competitive marketplace” and voiced support for federal and state proposals that would require all-in pricing “uniformly across platforms,” framing the fight as one about competitive fairness rather than deception.
Where the Case Stands
The DC Superior Court lawsuit remains pending as of mid-2026 and is a separate proceeding from the federal enforcement actions that followed. Two of those federal developments are worth knowing about because they shaped how StubHub prices tickets today, but neither resolves the DC claims.
The Federal Trade Commission finalized its “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees” on December 17, 2024, requiring live-event ticketing and short-term lodging businesses to show the total price, including mandatory fees, up front. The rule took effect May 12, 2025. StubHub moved to all-in pricing (fees included, local taxes excluded) by May 14, 2025, joining Ticketmaster and SeatGeek. CEO Eric Baker said the change cut purchase conversion rates by roughly 10 percent and called it a one-time hit.
The FTC then alleged StubHub failed to comply with the new rule around the mid-May 2025 NFL schedule release, when its site still omitted mandatory fees from its first two pricing displays. On April 9, 2026, the FTC announced that StubHub Holdings, Inc. agreed to pay $10 million to settle those charges in FTC v. StubHub Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02924 (S.D.N.Y.), entered April 10, 2026. The $10 million is earmarked for refunds to buyers who purchased tickets between May 12 and May 14, 2025. The settlement also permanently bars StubHub from advertising a price without prominently disclosing the total cost and requires clear disclosure of the nature, purpose, amount, and refundability of any fee before a buyer commits.
None of that federal activity covers the roughly nine years of drip-pricing conduct the DC AG wants restitution for. The Superior Court case is the vehicle for that recovery, and it continues.