Lakers fan claims foul by Ticketmaster

Ticketmaster is no stranger to irate customers.

Any company that charges hefty fees to process an automated order and to allow you to pick up your tickets at the box office is going to cheese off more than a few people.

But before this week, I’d never heard of Ticketmaster threatening to blacklist a customer just because she wanted to contact her credit card company.

Alexandra Le, 25, of Brentwood said she felt Ticketmaster’s wrath after buying tickets for Monday’s matchup between the Lakers and the Dallas Mavericks (the Lakers would go on to win, 73-70).

“This is not only completely immoral,” she told me, “this is threatening a customer.”

Le describes herself as a huge Lakers fan. She said she attended games at least once a month last season.

Le always looks first on Ticketmaster’s TicketExchange site, where season ticket holders and others can sell their seats for games they won’t be attending. Depending on who’s playing, seats can be purchased for considerably less than the cost of a new ticket.

There weren’t any seats available for the Lakers-Mavs game, Le said, so she went to the main Ticketmaster site and bought a pair of tickets for about $440, including fees. Thanks to a partnership between Ticketmaster and American Express, she was able to use rewards points to lower her cost by $68.

Just for the heck of it, Le said, she then returned to the TicketExchange site, and this time found Lakers-Mavs tickets for $125 each in the same row she’d just bought seats for $211 apiece.

Le called Ticketmaster and explained the situation. She said a service rep offered to refund the “face value” of her tickets — that is, none of the fees — “as a favor.” But Le said that when she asked about her AmEx points, the rep told her he couldn’t do anything about those.

Le didn’t think this was fair. She said she’d contact AmEx.

As Le tells it, the rep then replied: “I don’t want to upset you, but I will warn you that if you complain to American Express, you could be blacklisted from using Ticketmaster.”

Say what? Le immediately asked to speak with a supervisor.

“The supervisor then said they wouldn’t offer the refund,” Le recalled. “He said that they were doing me a favor. If I was going to call American Express, they wouldn’t help me.”

Le’s not the sort of person who takes that kind of thing well. She said she not only contacted AmEx, which proceeded to refund most of her reward points and credit her account an additional $25, but also the Better Business Bureau. Then she got in touch with me.

Jacqueline Peterson, a Ticketmaster spokeswoman, was understandably concerned when I relayed Le’s tale of woe. She said she’d pull the recording of Le’s conversation to confirm that the blacklist threat was actually made.

But what do you know? Peterson got back to me later and said the conversation hadn’t been taped. “Most calls are recorded,” she said. “This one wasn’t.”

Peterson said the whole thing may be a misunderstanding. She said the service rep probably told Le only that a disputed charge can result in further ticket purchases being suspended until the dispute is resolved.

“We don’t have a blacklist,” Peterson said. “That term isn’t part of our vernacular.”

I conveyed that to Le.

“‘Blacklist’ is absolutely the word they used,” she replied. “It’s exactly what they said. Why would I make this up?”

I’m scratching my head about that too. If you’ve had an experience with Ticketmaster like this, let me know. If there is indeed a blacklist, it’s time to drag it into the sunlight.

A needed law

In September, I wrote about a Toluca Lake woman whose home address was hijacked by an identity thief for multiple business schemes. After finding out how easy it was for an ID thief to do this, I asked if any lawmakers were willing to tackle the issue.

And one was.

“I read the column and heeded the call,” Assemblyman Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) told me this week.

He’s introduced legislation — AB 1325 — that would require people to present proper identification when applying for a fictitious business name, and that would make providing false information punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

“Deficiency in current law allows predators to commit fraud and prey on unsuspecting Californians, especially seniors,” Lara said. “It is imperative that we put the necessary administrative controls in place to provide all Californians with adequate consumer protections.”

My column told the story of Betty McDermott, 80, who discovered that her address had been used for no fewer than four fictitious companies. It was unclear what the companies were doing, or how McDermott’s address had been chosen.

But the incident highlighted the ease with which an identity thief could use someone’s address to create a fictitious business — no ID is presently required — and the lack of laws to address this. The only crime being committed at the moment is perjury.

“AB 1325 will go a long way in protecting consumers throughout the state,” Lara said.

I agree. His bill, which is already attracting bipartisan support, should become law.

David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.