A federal district judge in Chicago on Tuesday advanced a lawsuit brought by the Chicago Cubs against Wrigley View Rooftop, a business that charges$ 200 for a view of neighboring Wrigley Field in exchange for money.
Wrigley View Rooftop’s motion for dismissal was denied by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on the grounds that a delivery in a previous arrangement agreement’s arbitration clause serves as an “improper system” for dismissing the complaint. Coleman argued that the event should be sent to arbitration rather than to federal judge, but Coleman argued that a judge may not be able to maintain an arbitration clause based on precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ( which governs federal district courts in Illinois ).

The Cubs sued Wrigley View Rooftop and business owner Aiden Dunican next June, arguing theft, cruel enhancement, unfair rivals and unauthorized use of marks. The scenario represents the most recent development in a multi-decade legal dispute involving the owners of Wrigley Field properties that sell tickets for Kittens games, concerts, and other occasions.
The Cubs have long argued that top out-of-stadium businesses basically steal what the team offers its customers, including the opportunity to attend Cubs games and various Wrigley events in person. The Cubs have argued in court filings that the team spends more than$ 100 million annually on the salaries of players, coaches, scouts, trainers, and other personnel to provide that product, and that they ought to be able to protect access to it. Enthusiasts who attend Kids activities even buy items, clothing and food and beverages, all of which are income sources the Cubs seek to protect. Top businesses, however, are probably completely riders in that they don’t spend to produce the product yet gain from it.
Over the years, top firms have argued that they are acting within their right. They have asserted Wrigley Field, which was built in 1914, was constructed in a town. The project was completed because the team was aware that nearby buildings might have views of the rough. Additionally, balcony companies have argued that there isn’t any law supporting the legality of watching live performances from nearby locations. Property rights are another defence, namely that owners of adjacent buildings may use their home as they please.
In a contract that expired on December 31, 2023, the Cubs and top corporations settled this dispute in 2004. The businesses were required to share roughly 17 % of their revenue with the Cubs from out-of-stadium rooftop seats and 11 % of that amount in billboard revenue. The Cubs made an offer to extend the offer for a further expression after it expired. Just Wrigley View Rooftop, as Coleman information in her attempt, rejected the offer, as Coleman notes in her attempt. The business then proceeded to market, use Cubs ‘ marks on its site, and sell tickets to sports and other life events held at Wrigley Field next year.

The Cubs contend that the settlement agreement did not include an arbitration clause, which the Cubs claim the deal ceased to exist in 2023. The events, the Cubs argue, neither negotiated nor intended to create a “perpetual mediation commitment” that do survive the treaty’s expire. ” Accused”, the Cubs insist,” cannot modify the Partnership to impose new responsibilities they failed to contract for 20 years ago”. The group also stresses that the contested conduct—Wrigley View Rooftop’s deeds in 2024—occurred after the lawsuit ended.
Wrigley View Rooftop asserts for its part that it does not” offer access to Wrigley Field or events taking place that.” Instead, the company says it sells “licenses to entry” a top site where customers “enjoy the special watch it provides, as well as food and beverages to strengthen the experience”. Additionally, Wright View Rooftop maintains that the mediation clause stayed in effect after the lawsuit was over, and now applies to the dispute.
The situation could sit at any time, but for now moves ahead.