Ticketmaster Suit Shows Pricing Policies Are in FTC’s Crosshairs

The Federal Trade Commission and a bipartisan coalition of seven state attorneys general sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation in September, alleging that they allowed ticket brokers to buy up millions of dollars’ worth of tickets and resell them at higher prices.

The focus on junk fees and other deceptive pricing practices demonstrates that federal and state enforcers may view internal risk calculations and related discussions as powerful evidence of intent to deceive.

Businesses should review their pricing practices and fee disclosures, ensuring that internal and external comments about such practices align are made with an eye toward legal compliance.

Allegations

The FTC and the states make three primary allegations in the Ticketmaster lawsuit. First, they say the defendants allegedly displayed “deceptively low ticket prices” to consumers searching for tickets. A certain list price for a ticket was shown throughout the purchase process, but at checkout, “substantial mandatory fees not included in the list price” was added, raising the price by 30% or more, the suit claims.

Ticketmaster internally called this practice a “bait and switch” tactic used to “lift” ticket sales, according to the complaint, which was contrary to defendants’ public representations that “the first price the consumer sees is the price the consumer pays.”

The complaint also says the defendants and executives (including Ticketmaster’s president) were aware of consumer “sticker shock” through various surveys the defendants conducted, some of which showed that “hiding the fee until checkout resulted in the highest conversion.”

Although the defendants blamed scalpers and bots for high ticket prices, they knowingly allowed ticket brokers to exceed purchase limits, depriving consumers of the opportunity to purchase tickets at the price the artists set, the complaint claims.

The defendants also allegedly encouraged—or tacitly coordinated with—ticket brokers to allow the brokers to circumvent Ticketmaster’s own security measures, providing software solutions which allow brokers to bypass account limits.

This allowed the defendants to allegedly “triple dip” on tickets purchased by brokers— collecting fees when brokers first purchase the tickets, when Ticketmaster sells those tickets on their own secondary market, and when consumers make purchases on the secondary market.

The complaint alleges violations of several state unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes and the federal Better Online Ticket Sales Act, which prohibits the use of automated software to circumvent security measures and purchasing limits when buying tickets for public events. It also prohibits selling a ticket obtained through a violation of the BOTS Act if the seller participated in or could control the conduct, or knew or should have known of the violation.

Takeaways

While the BOTS Act may not apply to most industries, all companies can learn valuable consumer protection compliance lessons from the Ticketmaster lawsuit.

• Junk Fees. Although this case seems like a quintessential “deceptive junk fees” case, the FTC doesn’t assert violations of its Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees and instead contends that Ticketmaster is violating Section 5 of the FTC Act to imply tickets are available at a specific price.
  
  Similarly, the states don’t allege violations of any state junk fees statutes—they assert violations of state-specific UDAP provisions, such as advertising goods with intent not to sell as advertised, failing to disclose the amount of fees, omitting material facts consumers rely on, or making false or misleading statements concerning the price of goods.
  
  While junk fees and other deceptive pricing practices are a focus of federal and state enforcers, the theories and statutes used may follow more traditional consumer protection approaches.
  
• A/B Testing. When conducting a study, A/B test, or survey, companies should be mindful of discussions about the testing and results, as those communications may be used as evidence of deception in litigation or an investigation. For example, in the FTC’s 2022 settlement with Credit Karma, the agency alleged that Credit Karma knew some of its conduct was deceptive through the results of internal A/B testing. The settlement with the company requires it to retain records of any A/B testing for five years after the final order.
  
• Public Statements as Deception. Businesses tend to assume that deception cases are built based on internal documents and communications and consumer-facing advertisements. A company’s public statements can also play an important role in a consumer protection action, so such communications should be compared with the internal practices of the company.
  
• “Knowing” Violations. Companies may believe that as long as they aren’t intentionally deceiving consumers, there is no consumer protection case against them. But this action shows the perils in turning a blind eye to bad actors and consumer harm. Such conduct can form the basis of a knowing or tacit violation of consumer protection statutes. Companies should implement monitoring tools, clear policies, and response protocols for third-party conduct.
  
• State Claims. States will use all the tools in their toolbox, including a combination of state and federal laws, when bringing consumer protection enforcement actions. The broad nature of state UDAP authority allows AGs to use it alongside sector-specific authority such as the BOTS Act to hit companies with multiple alleged violations for the same conduct. Companies should ensure that they understand general consumer protection obligations and sector-specific rules.
  
• State and FTC Coordination. The FTC and state AGs continue to work together on bipartisan consumer protection investigations and enforcement actions, despite increasing political polarization in many other areas of law. This shows that businesses shouldn’t necessarily expect to take on more or less risk on certain consumer protection issues depending on the administration.
  

The FTC moved to stay the lawsuit due to the government shutdown, and the court granted the stay until Congress appropriates funds to the FTC. However, despite the federal shutdown, state offices remain fully operational.

As a result, all industries should expect continued attention from the states on fee transparency, especially as state-specific fee statutes and regulations continue to become effective.

The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-08884, complaint filed 9/18/25.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Paul Singer is partner and chair of Kelley Drye’s State AG practice group, advises companies on high-profile state attorney general investigations and multi-state enforcement matters.

Beth Chun is special counsel in Kelley Drye’s State AG practice group, advises on consumer protection and state AG enforcement matters affecting businesses nationwide.

Andrea deLorimier is an associate in Kelley Drye’s State AG practice group, focuses on consumer protection and advertising law, advising clients on regulatory risk and compliance.

Abigail Stempson contributed to this article.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines