House Dems press StubHub CEO over $5M broker fund: 'Potential grift'

The number at the center of the new congressional pressure campaign: more than $5 million in revenue generated on StubHub since 2022 by Andro Capital, the ticket broker fund co-owned by StubHub CEO Eric Baker. In a letter sent Thursday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) demanded documents and information from Baker about Andro, escalating a probe he first opened in July. The letter, first obtained by Billboard, targets Baker in his capacity as Andro's managing partner, not just as StubHub's CEO.

Garcia did not mince words: "Eric Baker appears to be using his positions at Andro Capital and StubHub to profit, potentially at the expense of customers, fans and artists. This apparent conflict of interest and potential grift is unacceptable." The letter raises concerns that Andro or its affiliates could receive favorable placement or other advantages in the resale market at the expense of buyers and sellers of smaller numbers of tickets. Garcia is asking Baker to provide all communications between Andro and StubHub, plus an accounting that shows the flow of cash between the two companies. The response deadline is Nov. 5.

The relationship at the heart of the probe was disclosed in StubHub's regulatory filings ahead of its IPO last year. Baker is a part-owner and managing partner of Andro, which buys bulk ticket inventory directly from event organizers and then resells it on the secondary market. StubHub keeps a percentage-based fee on that revenue. An affiliate of Andro, called Colloquy Capital, also has a contract with StubHub to lend short-term financing to other resellers on the platform. That structure means Baker sits on both sides of a marketplace: as CEO of the platform and as a principal in one of its largest vendors.

StubHub denies anything untoward in its relationship with Andro. In July, a company spokesperson said Baker's investment in Andro has been disclosed publicly, that Andro is a separate company and one of many vendors StubHub uses, and that the relationship makes up only a small fraction of StubHub's total revenue. The company's lawyers have told the Oversight Committee that Andro is one of several above-board vendors that transparently contribute to StubHub's overall business. StubHub declined to comment on Thursday's letter.

Beyond Congress, StubHub faces legal claims over Baker's involvement with Andro. A ticket buyer alleged this summer that he thought StubHub was a "neutral marketplace" and would not have given his business to the company if he had known the CEO was also a ticket broker. A judge sent the claims to private arbitration last month, ruling that StubHub's terms of service prohibit class action litigation. That ruling shields StubHub from a consolidated lawsuit, but it does not erase the underlying allegation or the political attention it helped generate.

As with Garcia's initial letter in July, Democrats are the minority party in Congress and do not have the power to enforce this demand on Andro. That could change if Democrats flip the House in next month's midterm elections. A shift in control would likely convert this letter into a more powerful tool, with subpoena authority and the ability to compel testimony. For now, the probe is a warning shot, but one aimed directly at a CEO's personal financial interests.

The episode is a reminder that disclosed conflicts can still become political liabilities, especially when consumer costs are involved. StubHub satisfied securities regulators by filing the Andro relationship ahead of its IPO, but lawmakers and plaintiffs can frame the same facts as a conflict of interest. The Oversight Committee's language about "favorable placement" and "advantages in the resale market" goes to the heart of how platforms allocate visibility, fees, and financing to vendors. Those are operational decisions that usually stay private; now they are under a congressional microscope.

For executives and boards, the strategic takeaway is to stress-test related-party transactions before they become headlines. A disclosure in an S-1 may be legally sufficient, but it does not immunize a company from political scrutiny, litigation, or reputational damage. The StubHub case shows how a seemingly routine vendor relationship can become a congressional talking point, a plaintiff's allegation, and a governance question all at once. Boards should ask whether their own executive side deals would survive that kind of scrutiny, and whether the economics of those deals are defensible in public.