Prefer to listen while you’re on the go? We’ve created an audio version of this Client Advisory that you can play anytime, anywhere.
On September 17, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), joined by seven (7) state Attorneys General (AGs), filed a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Ticketmaster controls roughly eighty percent (80%) of the primary concert ticket-sales market. The complaint alleges multiple violations of the FTC Act, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act, and various state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws (UDAP). The complaint also focuses on anticompetitive and deceptive conduct in the ticket sales and resale markets. The FTC and the Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia AGs’ key allegations include:
- Bait-and-Switch Pricing: The complaint alleges Ticketmaster misled consumers by displaying low “list prices” in search results and throughout most of the ticket purchase process. At checkout, however, Ticketmaster allegedly added mandatory fees that can increase the cost of the ticket by 30% or more. The complaint quotes Live Nation and Ticketmaster leaders acknowledging that this was a “bait-and-switch” tactic to create a lift in ticket sales. Although senior leaders at Ticketmaster acknowledged in internal documents that the customer experience suffers without upfront “All-In” pricing, the company continued to market lower prices to increase conversion, estimating that they would likely lose $50 million per year if they marketed all-in pricing.
- Deceptive Public Statements About Ticket Limits: Ticketmaster publicly claims that it enforces strict ticket limits in its Terms of Use and Purchase Policy. These ticket limits are set by artists to ensure ordinary fans have the opportunity to purchase tickets at reasonable prices. The FTC alleged that Ticketmaster systematically allowed ticket brokers to circumvent these limits by creating thousands of Ticketmaster accounts to purchase tickets, with one broker having over 13,000 accounts.
- Violations of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act: The Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTSA) makes it unlawful to (1) circumvent security measures used to enforce ticket limits, and (2) sell or offer to sell tickets obtained through such circumvention if the seller knew or should have known the tickets were unlawfully obtained. The FTC alleges that Ticketmaster violated BOTSA by knowingly selling tickets that brokers obtained by circumventing security measures. Ticketmaster allegedly declined to deploy more effective broker deterrence measures (like third-party identity verification) for fear of lost revenue, despite knowing brokers were violating terms and increasing costs for consumers. The FTC alleged that Ticketmaster helped brokers aggregate tickets through software tools and then allowed them to resell the tickets on Ticketmaster’s platform. These actions allegedly resulted in Ticketmaster collecting $3.7 billion in fees on resale tickets.
- Systematic Coordination with Ticket Brokers for Profit: The FTC alleges that Ticketmaster’s failure to stop the circumvention of its security measures allowed Ticketmaster to “triple dip” on fees by charging: (1) brokers fees when they purchase tickets on the primary market, (2) brokers again when they list tickets for resale, and (3) consumers fees when they purchase the resold tickets from brokers.
- State UDAP Claims: The state claims mirror the FTC’s claims and allege that Ticketmaster’s unfair practices included advertising with intent not to sell as advertised, false and misleading price statements, failure to disclose material purchase information, ticket limit deception, and forcing consumers, including vulnerable populations, to pay higher prices.
The FTC is seeking civil penalties, monetary, and injunctive relief to prevent further violations. The AGs are seeking civil penalties ranging from $1,000 to $50,000 per violation, depending on the state’s UDAP law, with several states providing enhanced penalties for violations against seniors or disabled individuals.
KEY TAKEAWAYS AND RECOMMENDED BUSINESS PRACTICES
This enforcement action signals the ongoing cooperation between the FTC and the states to enforce against unfair and deceptive practices. This enforcement action also reinforces the continued emphasis on combating junk fees and drip pricing practices. Businesses can take the following recommended steps to mitigate against such enforcement:
- Transparent Pricing: Companies selling goods or services should evaluate pricing, fees, and purchase flows and consider avoiding “drip pricing” by disclosing all mandatory fees upfront and not just at checkout.
- Consistent Enforcement of Terms: If your company states its policy publicly, it should ensure that its internal practices match the public policy.
- Audit Systems: Businesses should audit systems and partner platforms for signs of abuse or policy violations and act against vendors circumventing policies.
- Enhance Systematic Controls: Companies subject to BOTSA should use robust measures (e.g., identity verification, purchase monitoring, IP restrictions) to prevent circumvention of purchase limits and automated “bot” transactions.
- Document Marketing and Pricing Decisions: Companies should ensure that marketing and pricing campaigns are vetted for compliance with federal and state UDAP laws and include a statement of why the practice benefits customers. Avoid internal documentation that acknowledges potentially deceptive practices.
- Review Internal Communications and Train Employees: Companies should review internal document retention policies and deletion schedules. In addition, companies should require employees to take compliance training on how to create appropriate documentation that avoids problematic language like “bait and switch” or “hidden fees,” unless they are addressing the underlying behavior.
The CommLaw Group Can Help!
The FTC and the states’ Attorneys General continue to coordinate enforcement efforts and continue to target “hidden fees.” If you are including fees on top of your advertised pricing, we can help review your sales flows and internal practices for compliance with state and federal laws. The CommLaw Group has a team standing by, ready to answer your questions and help you navigate your business teams through changes to its operations and practices.
To schedule a compliance audit or learn more about how junk fee laws affect your business, please contact your relationship partner or :
Susan Duarte – sfd@commlawgroup.com