Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Suit alleging United Parks & Resorts engaged in deceptive ticket pricing gets dismissed in part, (Aug 28, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

Amusement park tickets are not goods or services under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The federal district court for the Southern District of California dismissed in part a class action suit brought against United Parks & Resorts, Inc., the operator of SeaWorld and Sesame Place alleging the theme park company used deceptive to sell theme-park tickets. The court dismissed claims alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) after following precedent which has held that amusement park tickets are not goods or services under the CLRA. The court also found that the consumers’ claim alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law also fail because they are based on the dismissed CLRA claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss the nationwide class after finding that whether out-of-state purchasers have sufficient California contacts is better resolved at class certification after discovery (Marks v. United Parks & Resorts, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01992-RBM-GC (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2026)).

Background. The defendant, United Parks & Resorts, Inc., operates theme parks in California, including SeaWorld and Sesame Place, and sells admission tickets online. The named plaintiffs are consumers who visited theme parks and purchased their tickets directly through the theme park company.

Generally speaking, the theme park company utilizes fake sales to entice consumers into purchasing tickets. The consumers’ allege practices such as, advertising “Limited-Time” discounts from regular ticket prices, using countdown clocks and language such as “HURRY, OFFER ENDS SOON!” to represent that its sales are on the verge of ending, however, these discounts are always available. The complaint also alleges that the theme park, until about July 1, 2024, used hidden fees when selling tickets.

The consumers brought a suit alleging the following claims against the theme park company: (1) violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq. (“FAL”); (2) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (3–4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”); (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) quasi-contract; (8) negligent misrepresentation; and (9) intentional misrepresentation.

Following the first motion to dismiss, the court dismissed the nationwide class allegations, the entire CLRA claim, the UCL claim to the extent it borrowed the CLRA, and plaintiff Galstian’s breach of contract, express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation claims. The consumers filed the Second Amended Complaint and the theme park company again moved to dismiss the CLRA claim, the CLRA-based UCL claim, and the nationwide-class portions of the contract and quasi-contract claims.

CLRA Claim. The court came to the same conclusion as the previous order on the first motion to dismiss in this case, that “the tickets at issue here are not “goods” or “services.” The CLRA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.” The court followed Lum v. Merlin Entm’ts Grp. U.S. Holdings Inc.,“the ticket here is the physical representation of an agreement for something intangible, access to [SeaWorld or Sesame Place],” and is therefore not a “good” under the CLRA. Additionally, although there is a split among the district courts, the Court notes that the majority of courts to have considered the issue have concluded that tickets to amusement parks are not “services” under the CLRA. The other courts reasoned that “to hold that the tickets, or more specifically the admission to the parks that the tickets provide, constitute a service requires a strained and unnatural construction of the term.” Here, the court determined that access to an amusement park is an intangible good.

Because a ticket for entrance to an amusement park does not constitute a “good” or “service” under the CLRA, the court dismissed this claim.

UCL Claim. The court also determined that to the extent that the consumers’ UCL claim is predicated on an alleged violation of the CLRA, the UCL claim is also dismissed.

Nationwide Class Claims. The consumers also seek to represent is a nationwide class consisting of “all persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased one or more ticket advertised at a discount on the SeaWorld or Sesame Place [sic].” Here, while the court acknowledges that “the SAC fails to allege that California has any connection to purported class members who reside outside of California and who purchased tickets to one of Defendant’s theme parks outside of California,” the court noted that maintenance of the nationwide class is an issue more appropriately resolved on a motion for class certification. As such, the court denied the dismissal of the nationwide class.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-01992-RBM-GC.

Judge: Montenegro, R.

Attorneys: Christin Kyungsik Cho (Dovel and Luner) for David Marks. Kristen Louise Spanier (Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir LLP) for United Parks & Resorts, Inc.

Companies: United Parks & Resorts, Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews