Ethics CasesSport

Cases · MSG Entertainment / Madison Square Garden · 2022–2023

Face Off at the Garden: MSG's Facial Recognition Ban on Opposing Lawyers

From 2022, MSG Entertainment, which owned Madison Square Garden, home of the Knicks and Rangers, and Radio City Music Hall, barred lawyers at firms suing it from its venues and used facial recognition to enforce the ban. In November 2022 a New Jersey associate whose firm was suing an MSG restaurant was stopped and turned away from a Rockettes show she was attending with her daughter's Girl Scout troop. New York's attorney general warned the policy might breach civil and human rights laws, the State Liquor Authority reminded MSG of its duty to admit the public, and a lawyer whose Knicks season tickets were revoked went to court. In March 2023 an appeals court held that state law protected ticket holders at theatres and concerts, but not sporting events. The case asks what a venue owes the public and where security technology ends and retaliation begins.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. MSG Entertainment bars attorneys at firms litigating against it from its venues.
  2. A New York trial court rules that state civil rights law requires admission of ticket holders to theatrical performances and concerts.
  3. On the weekend after Thanksgiving, a New Jersey associate is identified by facial recognition and turned away from a Rockettes show at Radio City.
  4. NBC New York reports the incident; the firm challenges MSG's liquor licence.
  5. A state bill is introduced to curb the practice; MSG chief James Dolan threatens to shut off alcohol at a Rangers game.
  6. New York Attorney General Letitia James asks MSG for information, warning of possible legal violations.
  7. The Appellate Division rules that the theatre-admission law excludes sporting events and vacates the injunction.

The ethical issues

  • Use of biometric surveillance on fans.
  • Excluding ticket holders as leverage in litigation.
  • Collective punishment of employees not involved in a case.
  • Venue owners' private property rights versus public access.
  • Deterring legitimate claims against powerful organizations.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Lawyers at affected firmsAttending events without being punished for their employer's cases.
Clients suing MSGAccess to counsel willing to take their cases.
MSG EntertainmentProtecting itself in litigation and controlling its venues.
Fans in generalPrivacy and fair treatment at venues.
Teams playing at MSGTheir fans' experience and the team's reputation.
Regulators and lawmakersEnforcing public-access and anti-retaliation rules.

The case

Background

MSG Entertainment owned and operated Madison Square Garden, home of the NBA’s New York Knicks and the NHL’s New York Rangers, as well as Radio City Music Hall, where the Rockettes perform [1][4]. Like many large venues, it used facial recognition as a security tool [1]. In 2022 it began using it for another purpose: enforcing a policy that barred lawyers at any firm pursuing litigation against the company from entering its venues while the litigation continued [1][3]. The attorney general later estimated the policy affected lawyers at more than 90 firms [3]. New York court records showed more than 20 active lawsuits against MSG Entertainment and its properties in the state [1].

The rules and governance

New York’s Civil Rights Law §40-b, a law dating from 1941, limits the right of certain venues to refuse ticket holders. It applies to “legitimate theatres, burlesque theatres, music halls, opera houses, concert halls and circuses” [2][5]. Liquor licensees must also keep their premises open to the general public under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law [1][4]. State and federal laws prohibit retaliation in some contexts, such as against people who bring discrimination claims [3].

Decision point: the Rockettes show

On the weekend after Thanksgiving 2022, a senior associate at Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, a New Jersey personal-injury firm, went to Radio City with her daughter and a group of Girl Scouts. Her firm represented a client suing a restaurant owned by MSG Entertainment, though she did not work on that case [1]. Security guards approached her, asked for identification and turned her away. Her daughter and the other Girl Scouts saw the show [1]. “I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show,” she said. “It was embarrassing, it was mortifying” [2].

A partner at the firm called it “absolutely absurd,” adding: “The fact they’re using facial recognition to do this is frightening. It’s un-American to do this” [1]. The firm challenged MSG’s liquor licence with the State Liquor Authority, arguing that the licence required MSG to admit the public unless people were disruptive or a security threat [2].

MSG said: “While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adversarial environment.” It said all affected attorneys had been notified, including that firm, twice, and that lawyers were welcome once litigation ended [1]. It said facial recognition was only one of its security methods and that the policy complied with all applicable laws [1][2].

Decision point: regulators and lawmakers

By then the policy had drawn judicial criticism. At a hearing in Delaware, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick called it “the stupidest thing I’ve ever read,” Reuters reported [1]. In January 2023, state lawmakers introduced a bill aimed at stopping venues from using facial recognition to exclude people because of litigation [2].

On 25 January 2023, Attorney General Letitia James wrote to MSG Entertainment. She warned that excluding people because of litigation against the company “could violate local, state, and federal human rights laws, including laws prohibiting retaliation,” and that it might dissuade lawyers from taking “legitimate cases against the company, including sexual harassment or employment discrimination claims.” She also questioned whether the software was reliable and what safeguards guarded against bias. “MSG Entertainment cannot fight their legal battles in their own arenas,” she said [3]. MSG replied that its policy “has never applied to attorneys representing plaintiffs who allege sexual harassment or employment discrimination” [4].

The Liquor Authority said it had followed standard procedure and issued a “Letter of Advice explaining this business’ obligation to keep their premises open to the public” [4]. MSG chief James Dolan responded on Fox 5 that he might “pick a night, maybe a Rangers game, and we’re going to shut down all the liquor and alcohol in the building,” posting signs that directed fans to contact the authority’s chief executive [4].

Aftermath: the courts

Larry Hutcher, a lawyer whose Knicks season tickets were revoked and whose whole firm was banned because he represented ticket resellers suing MSG, sued on behalf of his firm’s 60 attorneys under §40-b [2][6]. In November 2022 a trial judge granted limited relief for non-sporting events [2][6]. “It’s clear that everyone recognizes that Dolan has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner,” he said [2].

On 28 March 2023, the Appellate Division unanimously agreed that §40-b requires admission of ticket holders to theatrical performances and concerts, and that it does not cover sporting events. It rejected a trial lawyers’ association’s argument that MSG should be treated as a common carrier with a more limited right to exclude. It vacated the injunction, however, because the statute’s remedy is monetary damages, which the court held to be exclusive [5][6]. Knicks and Rangers games were therefore outside the statute’s protection.

The core dilemma

A private company says it needs to protect itself in litigation and has the right to control who enters its property. Its policy keeps out ticket-holding fans, using biometric technology, because of their employers’ lawsuits. Is that legitimate self-protection or retaliation that undermines access to justice?

Competing values

  • Property rights vs. public access: the right to exclude against duties under licences and statutes [2][4][5].
  • Security vs. surveillance: facial recognition for safety against use as leverage [1][3].
  • Corporate defence vs. access to justice: limiting adversaries against deterring legitimate claims [3].
  • Collective policy vs. individual fairness: banning everyone at a firm, including those not involved [1].

Strongest arguments

For MSG’s position: litigation is adversarial, and a company may reasonably worry about opposing lawyers gathering information at its venues [1]. Affected firms were notified in advance [1]. Sporting events are not covered by §40-b, and the appeals court found the injunction unjustified [5].

Against: the policy punished people for their employer’s work, not their own conduct [1]. It risked deterring lawyers from bringing cases, which harms clients’ access to justice [3]. Facial recognition made exclusion automatic and raised questions about reliability and bias [3]. Using liquor as a weapon against a regulator compounded the impression of retaliation [4].

On the law: the appeals ruling shows that something can be lawful, at least at sporting events, without being fair.

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights lens weighs MSG’s property and contract rights against fans’ interests in privacy and equal treatment, and clients’ right to counsel. The attorney general’s letter reflects concern that legal rights to bring claims were being burdened [3].

Kantian

A Kantian would ask whether turning away a parent at a children’s show, to gain leverage against her employer, treats her merely as a means [1]. A universal rule of “punish your opponents’ employees” would be hard to accept.

Utilitarian

A consequentialist would compare MSG’s claimed litigation benefits against embarrassment to fans, deterrence of lawsuits, reputational damage and regulatory conflict [1][2][3][4].

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: a venue wants to limit risks from adversaries in litigation.
  2. Gather the facts: what information risk exists, who is affected and what the law requires [1][3][5].
  3. Identify the stakeholders: lawyers, clients, fans, teams, regulators and MSG.
  4. Consider the options: a blanket ban, limits on lawyers working on the cases, or no ban.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: access to justice, privacy, fairness and property rights.
  6. Decide and review: narrow the policy and set clear limits on biometric use.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: MSG used facial recognition to enforce its ban, turned away a lawyer not working on the case, and drew warnings from the attorney general and Liquor Authority [1][3][4]. The appeals court ruled that §40-b covers theatres and concerts, not sporting events [5].

Contested: whether the policy was legitimate litigation strategy or retaliation, and whether sporting venues should be covered by public-access duties.

Why this case matters

Venues hold power over fans that goes beyond the game itself. Compare Beyond Heckling: Fan Abuse and the NBA’s Fan Code of Conduct and Pay Up or Lose Out: FIFA’s Variable Ticket Pricing at the 2026 World Cup.

Key terms

Legal but unethical
Law sets out what can be punished; ethics asks what is right. Compliance is a minimum, so an action can be lawful and still wrong.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Conflict of interest
A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
Humanity formula
A Kantian check: treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as a means to someone else’s goal.
Brand as ethical promise
A brand is more than a logo: it is a promise to stakeholders about values and conduct, and it is broken when actions contradict it.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Is it ever ethical for a venue to bar ticket holders because of litigation?
  2. Does facial recognition make the ban worse, or only more effective?
  3. Should sporting events get the same protection as theatres?
  4. How should a sports team respond when its arena's owner adopts such a policy?
  5. Where is the line between security and retaliation?

Sources

  1. Girl Scout mom kicked out of Radio City and barred from seeing Rockettes after facial recognition tech identified her — NBC News
  2. MSG Ban for Attorneys Suing Stays in Place; Facial Recognition Tech Gets New Scrutiny — NBC New York
  3. Attorney General James Seeks Information from Madison Square Garden Regarding Use of Facial Recognition Technology to Deny Entry to Venues — New York State Attorney General
  4. Letitia James presses MSG over facial recognition tech — CNBC
  5. Hutcher v Madison Sq. Garden Entertainment Corp. (2023 NY Slip Op 01646) — New York Appellate Division, First Department (via CourtListener)
  6. Lawyer banned from Madison Square Garden isn't entitled to injunction, New York appeals court rules — ABA Journal