This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
And Finally Business News Live Business
Disappointing gig? Now you can get your money back (in Finland)
By Andy Malt | Published on Tuesday 7 July 2015
Have you ever been so disappointed by a live music performance that you wanted to ask for a refund? Well now you can. Under certain circumstances. In Finland.
A ruling by Finland’s Consumer Disputes Board on a 2013 Chuck Berry show in Helsinki sets a new precedent for consumers in the country. One ticketholder took a claim for a refund relating to that show to the CDB, arguing that Berry was clearly not well enough to properly perform and had even apologised to the audience for this during the show.
Following a review by the Board, it was deemed that the claimant should receive half of their money back, on the grounds that it was generally accepted that Berry’s concert had been a sub-par show. This is apparently the first time such a ruling has been made in Finland.
Pauli Ståhlberg of the Consumer Disputes Board told Yle that similar future rulings could now be made for shows that do not meet consumer expectations. In addition to illness, he said, a legitimate claim might also be that the performer had been drunk or on drugs. Though that doesn’t mean all musicians should be going on stage stone cold sober in Finland, don’t worry.
“It’s not at all unusual at rock festivals that some artists are high”, noted Ståhlberg. “And that doesn’t even necessarily affect the quality of their performances”.
He added that this wouldn’t be an easy way to get your money back on any old show, before unscrupulous Fins start rubbing their hands together: “Anyone seeking a ruling like this is always spurred by a subjective opinion, but that’s not enough to get a refund. What is significant is a generally agreed view that the concert was a failure, as it was in the Chuck Berry case”.
Also, in this case it took two years for one person to get half their money back, so I’m going to assume it’s still probably safe (and financially viable) for artists feeling a little under the weather to risk getting on stage.
