June 13 (Reuters) - A firm that developed rules for

large scale arbitrations has asked the U.S. Supreme Court in a

case involving entertainment giant Live Nation to reject

a ruling that criticized the procedures as unfair to consumers.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Thursday, dispute

resolution firm New Era ADR said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals had last year misinterpreted its rules in a decision

rejecting Live Nation's efforts to require consumers to agree to

arbitrate any disputes when they purchased tickets.

Live Nation was accused of charging artificially high ticket

prices in a lawsuit that the event company tried unsuccessfully

to move them into arbitration. The 9th Circuit had last year

rejected New Era's arbitration rules and said the consumer

plaintiffs could sue Live Nation in a proposed class action in

federal court.

New Era is not a party in the lawsuit. It submitted a filing

to the justices as a friend of the court, defending its

practices. Live Nation has denied any wrongdoing.

The case, which the Supreme Court has not yet agreed to

hear, could give the justices a fresh chance to weigh the

contours of the Federal Arbitration Act and whether so-called

mass arbitration fits into the decades-old law.

Live Nation in its petition to the high court said

plaintiffs' lawyers were increasingly pursuing mass arbitration

as a pressure tactic to force companies to settle what it called

meritless claims.

Live Nation did not immediately respond to a request for

comment. A lead attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

New Era chief executive Rich Lee in a statement said the

company was "focused on removing gamesmanship and impediments to

ensure that all parties have their cases heard and efficiently

resolved on their merits."

Companies often promote arbitration as a more efficient way

for individual consumers to air their disputes outside of court.

As more companies have employed arbitration agreements to

steer consumer claims away from the federal courts, plaintiffs'

lawyers have increasingly turned to mass arbitrations, filing

thousands of individual arbitration demands that are nearly

identical.

Live Nation in 2021 had turned to New Era, a new dispute

resolution company, to use its mass arbitration platform.

A federal judge in 2023 had ruled that Live Nation could not

enforce its arbitration provisions, and the 9th Circuit had last

year upheld the decision.

The 9th Circuit had determined that New Era's mass

arbitration rules were "so dense, convoluted and internally

contradictory to be borderline unintelligible."

New Era's Supreme Court filing said its rules "have remained

centered on keeping mass arbitration workable, accessible, fast,

and merits-based for all parties involved."

In a separate filing on Thursday, lawyers for the consumers

urged the justices to leave the 9th Circuit's order in place.

The case is Live Nation Entertainment ( LYV ) et al v. Skot Heckman

et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No.

For plaintiffs: Warren Postman of Keller Postman, and Kevin

Teruya of Quinn Emanuel

For Live Nation: Roman Martinez and Tim O'Mara of Latham &

Watkins

For New Era: Sandra Musumeci of Kelley Drye & Warren

Read more:

Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback

scheme in new lawsuits

Lawsuit accuses American Arbitration Association of

monopolizing consumer market

Samsung defeats consumers' mass arbitration demand in US

appeals court