Sabotage: FTC sues Ticketmaster and Live Nation over deceptive pricing, scalping and bot practices

Cause what you see, you might not get

And we can bet, so don't you get souped yet

Scheming on a thing, that's a mirage

I'm trying to tell you now, it's sabotage

Beastie Boys - Sabotage

On Sept. 18, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), joined by attorneys general from seven states, filed a major lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The case accuses the entertainment giants of deceiving consumers through hidden fees, enabling illegal ticket-buying bots, and structuring the resale market to profit from inflated ticket prices. 

This filing comes on the heels of the Department of Justice's ongoing antitrust action, which targets Live Nation's market dominance. Together, the suits represent the most significant legal challenge to ticketing practices in decades. 

The FTC's case 

The FTC complaint attacks two sets of practices. First, the FTC alleges deceptive drip pricing. Ticketmaster, according to the complaint, advertises low headline prices, and then adds mandatory junk fees at checkout that can increase the cost by 30% to 40%. A $100 ticket often ends up being closer to $140 --- once service, facility, processing, and convenience fees are added. The FTC calls this a textbook violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. Section 45), which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices. 

Second, the agency alleges violations of the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 2016, which bans automated software that can bypass purchase limits. The complaint says Ticketmaster failed to stop bot attacks, even facilitating them by giving bulk access to brokers. That conduct, the FTC argues, enriches Ticketmaster while ordinary fans seeking tickets wait in endless virtual queues. 

Unlike the DOJ's antitrust suit, which focuses on monopoly structure, the FTC's case highlights daily consumer harms: misleading prices, hidden fees, and sales distorted by bots. 

Real example - Ariana Grande 

The impact is immediate for fans. When Ariana Grande announced her Eternal Sunshine Tour, face-value tickets in the $150-$300 range disappeared within minutes. Consumers attempting to buy tickets reported that the only remaining options on Ticketmaster's platform were resale listings starting at $4,000. 

Even face-value seats weren't truly what they seemed. A ticket advertised at $150 became $195 after mandatory fees that were only disclosed at the final screen. Premium seats in Los Angeles topped $7,000 with add-ons. In London, resale listings reached £4,000 (about $5,000). Grande herself called the system unfair and said her team was working to get more tickets directly to fans. 

This is exactly the type of deceptive pricing and scalping ecosystem the FTC's complaint is challenging. 

The junk fee trap 

The FTC's filing shows how drip pricing works in practice. A ticket advertised at $100 rarely ends up costing that amount. By the time mandatory charges are added --- including a service fee of $15 to $25, a facility charge of $5 to $10, an order processing fee of $5 to $7, and a so-called convenience fee of $4 to $8 --- the actual price comes to between $130 and $150. Because these fees are disclosed only after consumers have invested time and are facing a purchase timer, most feel pressured to complete the transaction. This distorts competition and prevents comparison shopping. 

Who really profits: Scalpers or Ticketmaster? 

Scalpers profit by buying tickets at face value and reselling them at multiples, turning a $200 ticket into as much as $2,000. But Ticketmaster profits at every stage of the transaction. It collects service fees on the original sale, then another round of fees on the inflated resale. On a $2,000 resale, those fees can run into hundreds of dollars. 

This double-dip makes Ticketmaster a direct financial beneficiary of scalping. The FTC's central claim is that the company is not a neutral bystander but an active participant in a system in which both scalpers and the platform thrive at consumers' expense. 

Legal framework 

The FTC invokes two federal core statutes. FTC Act Section 5 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, including drip pricing and misrepresentation of ticket availability. The BOTS Act imposes civil penalties on companies that knowingly enable bot purchases, with fines up to $53,000 per violation (adjusted for inflation under FTC enforcement guidelines). 

The complaint also notes Live Nation's market dominance --- 80%+ control of primary ticketing --- as a further exacerbator of consumer harms, although antitrust claims under statutes such as Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2) and Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Section 18) are being pursued separately by the DOJ. 

State consumer protection laws from seven states add parallel claims and additional remedies. 

Ticketmaster's likely defense 

Ticketmaster is expected to argue that it complies with the law and with industry norms. The company will likely say that all fees are disclosed before purchase is completed and that similar fee structures exist across entertainment and travel.

It will stress that it invests millions of dollars each year to fight bots and cannot be blamed for independent bad actors who deploy them. Ticketmaster will also point out that artists and promoters, not the platform, set face-value prices. Finally, it will contend that consumers retain choice and can abandon purchases if they object to fees once they see the full price. 

Can scalping be stopped? 

Efforts to regulate scalping have been piecemeal. The BOTS Act outlawed automated software that snaps up tickets in bulk, but enforcement has been weak. States like New York have tried to cap resale markups, yet online platforms operating across state lines undermine those rules.

Lawmakers and regulators have floated more ambitious reforms, such as requiring all-in pricing so consumers see the full ticket cost upfront, capping resale markups at 20% to 30% above face value, mandating verified fan systems that tie tickets to IDs to prevent bulk resales, creating profit-sharing rules so a portion of resale revenue flows back to artists or venues, and banning speculative listings where brokers post tickets they don't yet own. 

Do artists benefit? 

Usually, no. Artists and promoters set face-value prices and rarely share in resale profits. Fans often blame artists for $200 tickets that end up costing $350 after fees, but that extra money flows to Ticketmaster. Some artists have tried to capture resale value through dynamic pricing, so that initial prices rise only with demand. Bruce Springsteen's 2022 tour used dynamic pricing, with seats ultimately exceeding $4,000. Although this shifted the profit back to the artist, it sparked backlash from fans who saw little difference between dynamic pricing and scalping. 

The stakes 

If the FTC prevails, the remedies could include permanent injunctions such as requiring all-in pricing or enhanced bot enforcement, civil penalties, restitution, refunds, disgorgement of profits, and structural separation of Live Nation's ticketing and promotion arms --- although the latter is more directly a goal of the DOJ's antitrust suit. Even if the parties end up settling the matter, any final agreement could significantly reshape the industry, with an FTC more willing to impose structural remedies. 

Why it matters 

Going to see your favorite artist shouldn't feel like a scam. Yet that's exactly what happens when a $50 ticket mysteriously becomes $75 at checkout or when bots devour entire ticket drops in seconds, forcing real fans to pay $4,000 for seats that were originally priced at $150.

Live music, sports, and theater are how we connect with culture and with each other. But right now, trying to get tickets means running a gauntlet of hidden fees, fighting software robots, and often paying outrageous prices to scalpers.

The FTC's lawsuit cuts to the heart of a bigger question: In the digital age, should a handful of companies be allowed to control access to live experiences while profiting at every step? For millions of fans who've been burned by this system, the FTC's case isn't just about ticketing practices. It's about whether going to a concert should require a computer science degree and a trust fund.

Alongside the DOJ's antitrust push, this represents one of the most significant challenges to an industry that has gotten away with these practices for far too long.