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.
Business News Legal Live Business
MSG Entertainment partly lifts its venue ban on attorneys involved in suing the company
By Chris Cooke | Published on Tuesday 7 February 2023
MSG Entertainment has announced that it is cutting back its ban on lawyers working on litigation against the business, who aren’t allowed in its venues. Although only for those lawyers working on litigation against one of its subsidiaries.
MSG has recently come under criticism for its attorney ban. The firm is using facial recognition technology to stop lawyers working on lawsuits against the company from entering the venues it operates in New York City.
New York’s Attorney General Letitia James recently wrote to the entertainment group expressing concerns that that ban “may violate the New York civil rights law and other city, state, and federal laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected activity”.
MSG pushed back at the AG’s claims, telling reporters: “Our policy does not unlawfully prohibit anyone from entering our venues and it is not our intent to dissuade attorneys from representing plaintiffs in litigation against us”.
However, MSG has now lifted the ban on attorneys who are specifically involved in litigation against the Tao Group, a hospitality company in which it is the majority shareholder. Though that’s seemingly because it’s looking into selling its interest in that business.
According to Law360, MSG confirmed its ban no longer impacts on lawyers working on cases targeting the Tao Group. “All attorneys employed at the firms involved may attend events at MSG Entertainment’s venues, and those firms will all be notified”, an MSG spokesperson confirmed. “The policy remains in place for all other firms pursing active litigation against the company”.
