10.  Defendant Colorado Rockies is a franchise of MLB and hosts and operates a  minimum of eighty-one (81) baseball games each year at Coors Field in Denver, Colorado.    11.  Defendant sells between 2 million and 3 million tickets each season for an  average of $23.65 per ticket1—meaning Defendant grosses approximately $50 million every year  from the sale of tickets to its games.   12.  A sizeable portion of those tickets are subsequently resold on the Internet via  online ticket marketplaces such as StubHub.    15.  Defendant does not provide a list of sites that it authorizes for the resale of tickets  via the internet. On information and belief, there are not numerous websites authorized by the  Colorado Rockies as the pluralized word “sites” would suggest, but rather only one— www.stubhub.com, “The Official Fan to Fan Ticket Marketplace of the Colorado Rockies.”   History of Colorado Consumer Protection Act § 6-1-718   16.  The Colorado legislature amended the consumer fraud act, the CCPA, in 2008 to  include a provision regarding prohibitions and unlawful conditions imposed on ticket sales and  resales. This new provision is located at Section 6-1-718.   17.  In addition to its text, the legislative history of the amendment illustrates that the  Colorado legislature was deeply concerned with protecting consumers specifically with respect  to the resale of tickets and securing the public’s right to re-sell event tickets to whomever and  however they wish (subject to reasonable limitations on “scalping” within certain geographic  areas within proximity of the stadiums).    19.  The Colorado Rockies did not participate in the debate or provide testimony.   20.  The Colorado Senate passed the amendment by an 8-1 margin and Section 6-1- 718 of the CPA became effective on March 19, 2008.  Defendant’s Relationship With StubHub   21.  StubHub, a subsidiary of eBay, Inc., is a company that operates an online  secondary-market ticket marketplace where consumers can buy and sell tickets to live events,  including MLB games.   22.  In 2007, MLB Advanced Media—the digital and interactive media arm of Major  League Baseball and operator of www.mlb.com and the websites for each MLB franchise,  including www.coloradorockies.com—entered into an agreement with StubHub whereby  StubHub would serve as the official secondary ticket marketplace of MLB.    23.  However, MLB franchises such as the Colorado Rockies were not required to  participate in the agreement and instead had the opportunity to opt-out—which at least one  franchise, the Boston Red Sox, did.    24.  In December 2012 (more than four years after §6-1-718 of the CCPA became  law), MLB and StubHub entered into a new agreement that replaced the 2007 agreement.    25.  Pursuant to the 2012 agreement, MLB franchises had another opportunity to opt- out of the StubHub deal—which three franchises (the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Angels,  and Chicago Cubs) chose to do.    27.  On its official website, the Colorado Rockies have an entire section dedicated to  StubHub. When a consumer visits www.coloradorockies.com (the only website, secondary ticket  marketplace or otherwise, listed in the Terms and Conditions printed on Colorado Rockies  tickets) and clicks on the “Tickets” tab, the consumer discovers that the Colorado Rockies have a  whole page dedicated to providing information about buying and selling tickets via StubHub.  The webpage even provides hyperlinks to StubHub’s website.     28.  The new agreement imposed a minimum price restriction effective as of the 2013  season. Under the 2012 agreement, sellers who list MLB tickets on StubHub cannot list them for  less than $6.00.    29.  MLB franchises and StubHub share the profits gained from a service fee StubHub  charges for each sale. On information and belief, which discovery will confirm, this profit  sharing is roughly a 50-50 split.    30.  The amount of the service charge under the 2012 agreement is $3.00 for tickets  under $50.00 and is a percentage of the price above $50.00. Therefore, on information and belief,  the Colorado Rockies receive a minimum of $1.50 for each ticket sold via StubHub.  31.  Plaintiff Marilyn Sweet has purchased tickets to dozens of Colorado Rockies  games, including at least 6 during the 2013 season—always through StubHub.    33.  Because of the unlawful restrictions imposed on Colorado Rockies tickets that  threaten to impose sanctions on anyone who does not use StubHub (its only authorized site),  Plaintiff has been misled into foregoing rights and opportunities in the online resale market that  she otherwise would have had and that are guaranteed by Colorado law. The loss of such rights  and opportunities caused her to suffer actual damages.    34.   In addition to the forfeiture of legally guaranteed rights, Plaintiff and putative  Class members suffered direct harm in the form of monies paid for the StubHub service fee,  which several other online websites where Plaintiff potentially could have purchased the tickets  (www.craigslist.com, for example) do not charge. Plaintiff and Class members have also suffered  in the form of overpaying for a ticket that contained a provision that was void as against public  policy, the mere presence of which wrongfully discouraged consumers from using websites apart  from www.stubhub.com. Consumers face the additional risk that their ticket could be improperly  invalided as the result of an otherwise lawful ticket resale or purchase.   35.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of herself and a Class defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who purchased a Colorado Rockies ticket for a  baseball game at Coors Field in Denver, Colorado from March 19, 2008 to the  present.    37.  Commonality: There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims  of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect  individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class include, but are not limited to  the following:   (a)  whether Defendant’s conduct described herein violated the CCPA;   (b)  whether Defendant has stripped Class members of their legally-protected rights in  the online ticket resale market;   (c)  whether Defendant has profited from its violation of Colorado’s CCPA at Plaintiff  and the putative Class Members’ expense; and  (d)   whether Class members are entitled to damages based on Defendant’s unlawful  conduct.   38.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class, as Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered the same type of harm and sustained  similar damages arising out of essentially the same unlawful conduct of Defendant—its unlawful  imposition of sanctions upon the resale or purchase of tickets exchanged anywhere other than  through StubHub.   39.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant  has no defenses unique to the Plaintiff.   41.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   42.  The Colorado Consumer Protection Act § 6-1-718, et seq., protects consumers  from unlawful restrictions on the sale and resale of tickets.    43.  Section 6-1-718 (3)(a) provides that “it is void and against public policy to apply  a term or condition to the original sale to the purchaser to limit the terms or conditions of resale.”     45.  As described herein, Defendant knowingly violates both provisions.   46.  First, Defendant imposes a term on all of its tickets that the ticket cannot be resold  or offered or resale over the internet unless such activity is conducted through Defendant’s  official website or thought sites it authorizes—StubHub. This violates §6-1-718(3)(a)(IV) on its  face because it is followed by a threat of sanctions in the form of invalidation of the ticket  license.    47.  Second, in connection with its failure to opt-out of the 2012 agreement  Defendant  applies a policy that no ticket may be listed for less than $6.00. This violates §6-1-718(3)(a)  because it is a “term or condition on the original sale to the purchaser.” There may be numerous  reasons (poor seat location, bad weather forecast, undesirable opponent etc.) why a ticket is not  worth $6.00 in the secondary market. As a result, the ticket purchaser loses the opportunity to  sell his or her ticket for the market value of that particular ticket at that particular time, which  could be less than $6.00.    48.  Furthermore, perhaps most egregiously, Defendant knowingly breaks the law with  these provisions. Section 6-1-718 became law in 2008, nearly five years before the Colorado  Rockies had the opportunity to opt-out of the 2012 agreement. Knowing that such restrictions  would violate applicable Colorado law, Defendant should have opted-out and chosen not to have  an official secondary-ticket reseller.    50.  Accordingly, under the CCPA, Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages,  reasonable cost and attorneys’ fees, an injunction against further violations, and a declaration  that Defendant’s conduct is unlawful.   51.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   52.  Defendant and Plaintiff and members of the Class entered into valid and  enforceable contracts whereby those Class members are granted a ticket license for a Colorado  Rockies game.    53.  Consumers, such as members of the Class, purchase goods, services, and licenses  under the reasonable assumption that the seller will abide by all applicable laws, rules, and  regulations.   54.  However, Defendant, by violating CCPA § 6-1-718, has failed to perform this  implied condition of the contract.   56.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks damages for the Colorado  Rockies’ breach of contract, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to the extent  allowable.  57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   58.  Every contract under Colorado law contains an implied covenant of good faith  and fair dealing. The duty of good faith and fair dealing applies when one party has discretionary  authority to determine certain terms of the contract,    59.  The Colorado Rockies have discretion, when drafting the Terms and Conditions  of the ticket, to impose restrictions on the resale of tickets or not. Customers can obtain no other  tickets that would reasonably permit them any access.   60.  Defendant abused its discretion and placed restrictions in its tickets that violate  Colorado law.     61.  Rather than omit the unlawful terms that violate or opt-out of the 2012  agreement—both of which Defendant decided to do even though such decisions contravened  state law—Defendant exploits unwary consumers by forcing them to use StubHub for their  secondary ticket market needs or face sanctions.        63.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks damages for the Colorado  Rockies’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, reasonable attorneys’  fees, expenses, and costs to the extent allowable.  64.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   65.  In the alternative to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract allegations, the Colorado  Rockies have profited by knowingly imposing unlawful terms on Plaintiff and the Class and  exploiting consumers through its improper restriction of the secondary market to make more  money for itself.   66.  Defendant’s primary motive in refusing to opt-out of the 2012 agreement and in  imposing unlawful resale restrictions is to coerce ticket purchasers into believing they must use  StubHub and then sharing in the service fee profits resulting from the coercion.     67.  Plaintiff and the Class members have no adequate remedy at law.    69.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks restitution of all monies  Defendant unjustly received as a result of its conduct, as well as interest, reasonable attorneys’  fees, expenses, and costs to the extent allowable, as well as all other relief the Court deems  necessary to make Plaintiff Sweet and the Class members whole.   Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Breach of Contract  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Unjust Enrichment (in the alternative to Breach of Contract)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of the CCPA, C.R.S.A § 6-1-718, et seq  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  