Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation Entertainment are facing an unprecedented one-two punch from U.S. regulators. In one case filed this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – along with seven states – accuses Ticketmaster of deceiving consumers with hidden fees and by tacitly enabling scalpers to snag tickets en masse[1].
In a separate lawsuit filed last spring, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of 40 attorneys general from across the country have sued Live Nation-Ticketmaster for monopolizing the live events industry, alleging the company’s dominance has led to inflated prices, excessive fees, and fewer choices for venues, artists, and fans[2][3].
These twin federal actions, one focused on consumer protection and the other on antitrust violations, zero in on practices that have fueled years of fan outrage – from surprise surcharges at checkout to a ticketing stranglehold that many say leaves fans and performers at Ticketmaster’s mercy.
What do these lawsuits mean for the ticket industry, businesses within it, and the ticket-buying consumer? TicketNews staff have sought to break these actions down, highlight what they claim, and explore how they overlap in painting a critical picture of Ticketmaster’s business practices.
The FTC’s Complaint: Hidden Fees, Bots, and Deceptive Ticketing Tactics
The FTC-led lawsuit (joined by seven state attorneys general) takes direct aim at how Ticketmaster markets and sells tickets to consumers. According to the complaint, Ticketmaster has for years used “bait-and-switch” pricing – advertising one price early in the purchase process, then hitting fans with mandatory fees that can add up to 44% to the cost by checkout[4]. Those surprise fees (service charges, order processing fees, facility fees, etc.) were often not fully revealed until the final clicks of an online sale. Internally, even Ticketmaster executives described this practice as a “bait and switch,” acknowledging the customer experience “sucks” without upfront all-in pricing[4]. Regulators say this drip pricing deceived consumers and padded Ticketmaster’s coffers to the tune of $16.4 billion in fees from 2019 to 2024[4].
But the FTC’s allegations go beyond hidden fees. The complaint paints a picture of a company that publicly blames bots and scalpers for ticket scarcity and sky-high resale prices, while privately turning a “blind eye” to many allegedly problematic practices by some of those brokers to boost profits[5]. Ticketmaster controls roughly 80% of major concert venues’ primary ticketing market, selling tens of billions of dollars in tickets[5]. The FTC says Ticketmaster was fully aware that professional ticket brokers deploy bots and other tricks to evade purchase limits – for example, by creating thousands of fake accounts and using proxy servers to buy up as many seats as possible[6]. Rather than rigorously stopping these practices, internal communications show a senior executive admitted the company “turn[s] a blind eye as a matter of policy” to brokers violating ticket limits[7]. An internal review found just five brokers controlled 6,345 Ticketmaster accounts and quarter-million tickets (246,407 seats to 2,594 events)[7].
Why would Ticketmaster allegedly look the other way? Because it profits at every step. When a anyone buys a concert ticket on Ticketmaster, the company collects a service fee. When someone turns around and lists the ticket for resale on Ticketmaster’s official exchange, Ticketmaster collects another fee. And when a fan ultimately purchases that marked-up resale ticket, Ticketmaster charges yet another fee on the same seat[7]. In other words, the FTC says Ticketmaster found a way to triple-dip on fees for high-demand tickets – essentially earning hundreds of millions from tickets that are sold and then re-sold – so long as they are resold back through their system[8][7]. All the while, fans faced higher prices and often missed out on primary tickets, and ticket limits were rendered meaningless.
To facilitate this, the complaint says Ticketmaster even provided special tools to brokers. One such tool, an online platform called TradeDesk, let high-volume resellers manage large inventories of tickets acquired from Ticketmaster’s system in bulk[9]. The FTC claims Ticketmaster could identify which brokers were breaking the rules – TradeDesk data made it obvious – yet the company chose not to ban these sellers or impose effective anti-bot measures[10][6]. In fact, internal documents show Ticketmaster declined to adopt tougher identity checks on ticket buyers because those measures proved “too effective” at blocking high-volume scalpers[11][6].
Simply put, the FTC is alleging a consumer protection nightmare: Ticketmaster and Live Nation violated the FTC Act’s ban on deceptive practices and the 2016 Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act by facilitating ticket resale that violated its own terms and conditions, all while misleading fans about prices and fees[12][13]. The lawsuit seeks hefty civil penalties and other relief, and was filed in a California federal court with state attorneys general from Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia signing on[13].
The DOJ’s Antitrust Case: Is Live Nation-Ticketmaster an Illegal Monopoly?
The DOJ-led antitrust lawsuit – filed in 2024 in New York and later joined by 40 state attorneys general – takes a broader view, essentially asking: Has Live Nation-Ticketmaster become a monopoly that squeezes out competition in live entertainment? The Justice Department says yes. Their complaint accuses the company of “monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States” through a long-running pattern of anti-competitive conduct[3]. Live Nation Entertainment is not only the owner of Ticketmaster (the dominant ticketing platform for concerts), but also the largest concert promoter in the world and a major venue owner. This vertically integrated empire, DOJ argues, gives Live Nation-Ticketmaster an unparalleled ability to dominate every stage of a concert – from touring and ticket sales to the resale market.
According to the DOJ, after Live Nation merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, the combined company set out to lock in venues and artists and shut out rivals. The complaint describes a self-reinforcing “flywheel”: Live Nation uses its huge roster of popular tours to pressure venues into long-term exclusive ticketing deals with Ticketmaster; those exclusive deals ensure Ticketmaster keeps its ~80% share of major venue ticketing[5]; Ticketmaster’s fees and data from those sales then further strengthen Live Nation’s promotion business and influence with artists, which in turn gives Live Nation leverage to secure more venue exclusivity[14][15]. In practice, DOJ alleges, Live Nation-Ticketmaster has done the following to maintain its dominance:
- Exclusive contracts and venue retaliation: Ticketmaster locks in multi-year exclusive agreements with concert venues, preventing them from selling tickets through any other service[16]. Venues that consider alternatives risk losing access to top Live Nation-promoted tours – a kiss of death for a major arena or amphitheater[17]. DOJ claims Live Nation has even threatened venues and promoters who tried to work with competitors, ensuring everyone stays in line with the Ticketmaster platform. As one U.S. Senator put it, Live Nation can be “so powerful that it doesn’t even need to exert overt pressure – everyone just falls in line” to avoid being cut off from major concerts[18][19].
- Acquiring and crushing competitors: When upstart promoters or ticketing platforms started gaining traction, Live Nation allegedly bought them out or used its power to stifle them. Over the years, the company has snapped up regional promoters and rival ticket sellers, further consolidating its hold on the market. This lack of competition, the suit argues, has left fans stuck with outdated tech and poor service (like glitchy ticket queues) because Ticketmaster faces less pressure to improve[20]. It also leaves artists and mid-size promoters with fewer avenues to tour independently, since Live Nation controls so many venues and tours[3].
- Inflated prices and fees: With its market power, Ticketmaster has been able to impose steep fees – sometimes north of 25% or more of a ticket’s face value – without fear of losing business, since fans and venues have nowhere else to go at scale. The DOJ complaint explicitly cites “excessive fees” and price inflation as byproducts of Ticketmaster’s monopoly behavior[2]. Fans in the U.S., it notes, pay more in ticket fees and face more frustration than those in countries with more competition[21]. Even major artists have voiced frustration that high fees can sour their fans’ concert experience, but many feel they have no choice but to work with Live Nation’s Ticketmaster for nationwide tours.
- Blocking innovation and choice: DOJ also highlights how Ticketmaster’s contracts often forbid venues from using multiple ticketing providers at once[22]. This means a venue can’t, for example, sell some tickets via an upstart platform with a new idea (like lower fees or special fan-driven pricing) while still using Ticketmaster for other events – it’s all or nothing. By disallowing hybrid approaches and locking venues in, Ticketmaster has insulated itself from innovators that might benefit fans with better prices or technology[16][23]. The result, according to Attorney General Merrick Garland, is that “fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services”[3].
The DOJ’s lawsuit argues that this conduct violates the Sherman Antitrust Act (Section 2) by maintaining unlawful monopolies in primary ticketing and concert promotion markets. The stakes are high: the government isn’t just asking for fines, but is seeking structural remedies – potentially even a breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster[3]. “It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” Garland said plainly, reflecting the suit’s demand that the company’s chokehold on the industry be dismantled[3]. The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and numerous state AGs (of both parties) are unified in this effort. As one Republican antitrust advocate noted, “Democrats, Republicans, and independents have all been ripped off by Ticketmaster’s monopoly”, underscoring the broad, bipartisan support for reining in the company[24]. The case is moving forward in federal court with a trial date currently set for March 2026[25][26], meaning the legal battle will likely be long – but many fans and industry watchers feel it’s long overdue.
Overlapping Concerns: How Both Suits Target Ticketmaster’s Resale Practices and Fan Harm
Though the FTC and DOJ cases tackle Ticketmaster’s behavior from different angles, they share some common ground – especially regarding the ticket resale market and the harm to consumers. Both complaints describe a scenario where Ticketmaster not only dominates primary ticket sales but also leverages that control to influence (and profit from) secondary sales, often to the detriment of fans.
In the FTC’s consumer protection suit, one of the core allegations is that Ticketmaster quietly enabled large-scale reselling. By allowing brokers to purchase far beyond the stated ticket limits and then resell those tickets on Ticketmaster’s own platform at a markup, the company created a situation where fans paid “significantly more than the face value of the ticket” – with Ticketmaster taking a cut of each inflated resale[8][7]. In essence, the FTC says Ticketmaster secretly partnered with scalpers: the more prices soared on the secondary market, the more fees the company could collect, all while fans shelled out billions extra in frustration. This under-the-table coordination with brokers is not only deceptive (given Ticketmaster’s public stance against “ticket bots”), but, according to the FTC, it also violates the BOTS Act, which is meant to prevent exactly this kind of unfair ticket hoarding and resale profiteering[6][13].
The DOJ’s antitrust suit touches on the resale issue from a competition perspective. Ticketmaster has its own official resale marketplaces (for example, it runs ticket exchanges where fans can resell tickets to events). Over the past few years, Ticketmaster’s share of secondary ticket sales has “grown rapidly,” reaching nearly one-third of all resale concert tickets in North America by 2022[27]. Part of how it grew that share, critics say, is by using its dominance to box out independent resale platforms or steer fans back to Ticketmaster’s exchange.
A recent example is telling: Ticketmaster has lobbied for rules that would cap resale prices at 20% above face value – promoted as a measure to curb price-gouging by scalpers. But industry observers point out such a cap would likely just drive resale activity onto Ticketmaster’s own platform (where it can enforce the cap), cutting out competing marketplaces and consolidating more power for Ticketmaster[28]. As one industry source put it, “Rather than breaking up monopolistic power, resale caps would consolidate it,” ultimately giving Ticketmaster “more leverage over venues and artists” without truly lowering costs for fans[29]. Both the FTC and DOJ see Ticketmaster’s control of resale as problematic – the former frames it as a scheme that deceives consumers and inflates prices, while the latter sees it as one more front in Live Nation’s war against competition.
Critically, both lawsuits underscore the real-world impacts on fans: higher prices, surprise fees, and lack of alternatives. Whether it’s the FTC noting how Ticketmaster’s deceptive fee disclosures caused sticker shock (and meant some fans might not have bought tickets had they known the true total up front)[30], or the DOJ detailing how Ticketmaster’s lack of competition has kept service fees high and innovation low, the message is similar. For the average concertgoer or sports fan, these legal battles aren’t just abstract corporate issues – they address everyday complaints that have echoed for years. Tickets selling out in seconds to resellers, only to show up at double the price; checkout screens suddenly bloating your total with $40 in fees; being stuck with Ticketmaster because your favorite artist can’t play your city unless the venue uses Ticketmaster – these frustrations form the backdrop to both lawsuits. In fact, the DOJ’s case explicitly cites that “fans pay more in fees” and have “fewer real choices” due to Ticketmaster’s conduct[3], while the FTC notes consumers have been “ripped off when they buy tickets” under the current system[31]. The overlapping theme is clear: Ticketmaster’s practices have systematically tilted the playing field against the fan.
Years of Fan Frustration Fuel the Crackdown
These legal actions didn’t emerge in a vacuum – they are the culmination of longstanding consumer fury toward Ticketmaster’s grip on live events. For over a decade, concertgoers and sports fans have complained about everything from opaque ticket fees to monopolistic behavior. Those complaints crescendoed in recent years, grabbing headlines and political attention. A turning point was the infamous Taylor Swift “Eras Tour” presale meltdown in late 2022, when unprecedented demand (and alleged bot attacks) overwhelmed Ticketmaster’s systems. Millions of “Swifties” were met with error messages, hours-long waits, and sky-high secondary prices, sparking public outrage[32]. The fiasco became a rallying cry: fans, artists, and even lawmakers openly questioned how one company’s infrastructure could so spectacularly fail – and why there weren’t better alternatives. It even prompted a Senate hearing in early 2023, where senators from both parties grilled Ticketmaster executives and argued that the lack of competition in ticketing was at the heart of the problem[18].
From pop music fans to sports devotees, dissatisfaction with Ticketmaster has been remarkably bipartisan and widespread. “Live event fans across America are applauding this … effort to hold Ticketmaster accountable for years of anticompetitive behavior that’s driven up costs, undermined access to tickets, and resulted in several disastrous ticket sale rollouts,” said Mark Meador of the Fan Fairness Coalition, reacting to the DOJ lawsuit[33]. In other words, the complaints in these cases read like a legal validation of what fans have been saying all along. Hidden “junk fees” at checkout? We’ve all felt those sticker shocks. Bots and scalpers vacuuming up tickets? Fans have long suspected that the deck was stacked against the ordinary buyer. Venues and promoters feeling they can’t turn elsewhere? Many in the industry have quietly echoed that sentiment for years, even as Live Nation denied leveraging its dominance.
Now, with the FTC and DOJ both bearing down on Live Nation-Ticketmaster, many consumers and artists are hopeful that real change might be on the horizon. The fact that two powerful federal agencies – backed by dozens of states – are taking action in quick succession signals a tough stance: the era of Ticketmaster’s unchecked reign may be coming to an end. “The ticketing industry in America is broken because Live Nation-Ticketmaster has an illegal monopoly,” said DOJ Antitrust Division chief Jonathan Kanter when announcing the suit, vowing to “restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists.”[34][35] The FTC’s chair, for his part, framed their case as part of a mission to ensure “Americans aren’t ripped off when they buy tickets to live events”[31].
Of course, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have denied wrongdoing and will have their day in court to argue their side. The company contends that it has actually improved the ticket-buying experience and that its fees and contract terms are standard for the industry. They point to investments in anti-bot technology and say that artists set ticket prices (including any platinum or dynamic pricing that fans sometimes criticize, rather than the company itself). Live Nation’s leadership also notes that the ticketing business is still competitive at certain levels – citing rivals like SeatGeek, AXS, and Eventbrite – and that breaking up the company would unfairly punish a successful American business. In response to the FTC suit, Live Nation stated that it “strongly opposes the claim that Ticketmaster has some kind of collusion with scalpers,” arguing the platform has spent millions fighting bots. These counter-arguments will be weighed as the cases progress.
Still, the very existence of these parallel lawsuits is historic in the live events world. For consumers, it’s a sign that the government has heard their frustrations. Price transparency, fair access to tickets, and real competition could be on the horizon if the suits succeed (or even if the pressure leads to settlements or reforms). In the meantime, fans can take some vindication in seeing Ticketmaster’s practices under the microscope. The road to a final outcome will be long – antitrust cases especially can drag on for years – but the message from regulators is loud and clear: the status quo in ticketing is unacceptable, and change is coming, one way or another, to ensure the show finally goes on at a fair price.
Sources:
- Federal Trade Commission Press Release on lawsuit against Live Nation/Ticketmaster (Sept. 18, 2025)[36][37]
- TicketNews coverage of FTC complaint (Dave Clark, Sept. 2025)[38][7]
- U.S. DOJ Press Release on antitrust suit against Live Nation/Ticketmaster (May 23, 2024)[3][33]
- TicketNews coverage of DOJ antitrust case and industry context[2][29]
- Complaint excerpts: FTC v. Ticketmaster (C.D. Cal. 2025)[6]; U.S. et al. v. Live Nation Ent. (S.D.N.Y. 2024)[27].
[1] [4] [5] [6] [7] [13] [30] [31] [38] FTC Sues Ticketmaster, Says Company “Turned a Blind Eye” to Bots While Deceiving Fans | TicketNews
[2] [28] [29] DOJ Lawsuit, Trump Blueprint Put Ticketmaster at Center of Ticketing Debate
[3] [24] [25] [26] [33] 10 More States Sign onto DOJ’s Live Nation, Ticketmaster Antitrust Suit
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [36] [37] FTC Sues Live Nation and Ticketmaster for Engaging in Illegal Ticket Resale Tactics and Deceiving Artists and Consumers about Price and Ticket Limits | Federal Trade Commission
[14] [15] [16] [17] [20] [21] [22] [23] [34] [35] Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry | United States Department of Justice
[18] [19] [32] From the Eras Tour to DOJ Lawsuit: Swifties’ Take LN-Ticketmaster Breakup
[27] Complaint: U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C.
