By Mike Scarcella

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 LYV.N 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 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

(Reporting by Mike Scarcella)

((Mike.Scarcella@thomsonreuters.com;))