Using a Ticket Is Enough: Fourth Circuit Upholds Arbitration Clause in Stadium Injury Case

The evolution of arbitration law has increasingly intersected with modern digital transactions, including everything from online purchases to smartphone-based event tickets. One of the more intriguing recent decisions to emerge from this intersection comes from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which ruled that merely using a ticket is sufficient to bind an individual to an arbitration agreement—even if the ticket wasn’t personally purchased or possessed by that individual.

The case arose from a high-profile incident at a Washington Commanders football game, where a stadium railing collapsed, injuring several fans, including a visiting Philadelphia Eagles supporter. The fan subsequently sought to bring a lawsuit in court, but the Commanders moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate by virtue of attending the game under a ticket that included an arbitration clause.

The Fourth Circuit agreed with the Commanders, reinforcing the enforceability of arbitration clauses embedded in ticketing terms and highlighting the broad legal reach of assent through use.

To read more about this decision, click here.

Background: Injury at a Stadium and the Dispute That Followed

The incident occurred at FedEx Field during a National Football League game between the Washington Commanders and the Philadelphia Eagles. A group of fans leaned against a railing to greet players after the game, at which point the railing collapsed, causing several people to fall and suffer injuries.

One of those injured fans filed a lawsuit against the Commanders, alleging negligence and seeking damages for his injuries. The Commanders responded by pointing to the arbitration provision contained within the terms and conditions of the electronic ticket used for stadium admission.

A key wrinkle in the case: the plaintiff had not purchased the ticket himself, nor had he ever personally viewed or downloaded the ticket. Instead, a friend had bought the tickets and retained them on a mobile device. The plaintiff simply accompanied his friend to the game and used the ticket to gain entry.

The Legal Question: Is Usage Equivalent to Assent?

The central legal issue was whether someone who did not buy, receive, or personally review a ticket—but used it to enter an event—could be bound by the arbitration agreement embedded in the ticket’s terms.

The plaintiff argued that he was not a party to the arbitration agreement because he had not seen or agreed to the terms. He claimed that without actual or constructive notice of the arbitration clause, he could not be bound by it.

The Commanders countered that by using the ticket to gain entry, the plaintiff had accepted its terms, regardless of whether he read or reviewed them. They likened it to a form of apparent authority and practical reality: in modern digital commerce, it is common for individuals to use goods or services purchased by others, and the law often imputes consent through use.

The Fourth Circuit’s Ruling: Use Equals Acceptance

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration. In its decision, the court emphasized several key points:

• Usage Constitutes Acceptance: The plaintiff accepted the ticket’s terms by using it to enter the stadium, even if he did not personally purchase or hold it.

• Digital Ticketing Doesn’t Undermine Consent: The fact that tickets were stored on a friend’s phone did not excuse the plaintiff from being bound by their terms. In today’s digital environment, individuals are expected to understand that electronic transactions often carry binding legal terms—especially in high-volume, high-profile contexts like professional sports events.

• Constructive Notice Is Sufficient: Courts have consistently held that a party may be bound by terms even without actual notice, so long as the terms were reasonably available and the party had an opportunity to review them.

The court concluded that denying enforcement of the arbitration clause under these circumstances would undermine the enforceability of standard contractual mechanisms used in thousands of venues and transactions every day.

Implications for Consumers and Venue Operators

This ruling has significant implications for both consumers and operators of public venues such as stadiums, arenas, and entertainment facilities.

For Consumers:

• Know Before You Go: Attending an event on someone else’s ticket does not insulate one from the legal terms attached to that ticket.

• Arbitration Provisions Are Enforceable: Courts will uphold arbitration clauses in tickets—even in cases involving personal injury—if usage of the ticket demonstrates consent.

• Constructive Notice Carries Legal Weight: Whether or not a person reads the fine print, using a service or attending an event often implies acceptance of associated terms.

For Venue Operators:

• Digital Ticketing Must Be Clear: Terms and conditions should be prominently displayed and easy to access during the ticket purchase and delivery process.

• Third-Party Usage Should Be Anticipated: The structure of arbitration clauses and liability waivers should be drafted with an eye toward third-party use—friends, family, or invitees using someone else’s ticket.

• Enforcement Depends on Transparency: While courts are willing to uphold arbitration clauses, they still expect the terms to be presented in a reasonably fair and accessible manner.

The Broader Context: Arbitration in the Digital Age

The decision adds to a growing body of law supporting the enforcement of arbitration clauses in the context of digital transactions and mobile platforms. Much like clickwrap agreements in e-commerce or arbitration terms in ride-share apps, courts increasingly recognize that use implies assent, and consumers are expected to take reasonable steps to inform themselves of relevant terms.

This trend promotes consistency in contract enforcement and helps businesses reduce the unpredictability of litigation. At the same time, it places greater responsibility on users—especially those entering into transactions through third parties or digital platforms—to understand that their actions may carry legal significance.

A Note of Caution: Arbitration Clauses Are Not Immune from Challenge

Despite the Fourth Circuit’s strong affirmation in this case, arbitration clauses—particularly in consumer and personal injury settings—remain subject to challenge if they are:

• Overly broad or one-sided

• Presented in a misleading or confusing format

• Buried in dense or inaccessible terms

Courts will continue to examine each case carefully to ensure that enforcement of arbitration does not come at the expense of basic fairness or statutory protections.

Unlocking Fair and Enforceable Dispute Resolution

As arbitration continues to expand into new areas of law, including stadium liability, digital contracting, and third-party usage scenarios, it is increasingly important for both parties and legal professionals to understand the nuances of enforceability and consent.

At Nationwide ADR, arbitration and mediation services are guided by fairness, clarity, and an understanding of evolving legal frameworks. Whether the dispute arises from a commercial agreement, consumer contract, or negligence claim involving complex procedural issues, Nationwide ADR offers principled and pragmatic dispute resolution.

With experience in business torts, consumer cases, employment disputes, and beyond, Nationwide ADR is committed to Unlocking Solutions for Demanding Cases.

To learn more about arbitration enforcement and strategic dispute resolution, visit NationwideADR.com.