The FTC. Vs. Ticketmaster: What the Lawsuit Reveals About Market Power

Fans have long complained that buying tickets online feels like running a gauntlet of fees, markups, and bots. A recent lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) joined by seven state attorneys general, puts those frustrations at the center of a legal battle. It also raises the question: how much of the system was designed to keep consumers paying more?

This isn’t the first time Ticketmaster has faced criticism, but the FTC lawsuit could mark a turning point. If the case succeeds, it may reshape how online platforms disclose fees and handle brokers. The implications extend far beyond concerts and sports arenas.

The lawsuit filed against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster LLC, alleges that the companies coordinated with ticket brokers to facilitate large-scale purchases of event tickets, later resold the acquired tickets at higher prices to consumers, and in so doing engaged in deceptive pricing practices that misled both consumers and artists.

This isn’t the first time Ticketmaster has faced criticism, but the FTC lawsuit could mark a turning point. If the case succeeds, it may reshape how online platforms disclose fees and handle brokers. The implications extend far beyond concerts and sports arenas.

Alleged Broker Coordination

According to the FTC, Ticketmaster and Live Nation permitted brokers to acquire vast quantities of tickets on the primary market, often in violation of stated ticket limits. Those tickets were then resold on Ticketmaster’s secondary platform at a significant markup, with additional fees added to the resale price. The FTC alleges that this arrangement both inflated costs for consumers and provided substantial revenue to the companies.

Internal communications cited in the complaint reportedly indicate that Ticketmaster executives were aware that a small group of brokers operated thousands of accounts to purchase hundreds of thousands of tickets. Despite having tools that could reduce broker activity, the FTC asserts that the company chose not to adopt more stringent measures because limiting broker purchases could reduce overall revenue.

If proven, this coordination shows how the secondary market wasn’t an unintended loophole but an integrated revenue strategy. That would blur the line between fighting scalpers and profiting from them.

Deceptive Pricing Allegations

The complaint also alleges that Ticketmaster engaged in what is commonly referred to as “drip pricing”—advertising ticket prices that did not reflect the full cost. Mandatory fees paid by consumers to the company, sometimes representing as much as 40% of the ticket’s base price, were allegedly withheld until the final stages of checkout in what is often a lengthy and attenuated process. Between 2019 and 2024, the FTC estimates these fees amounted to more than $16 billion in consumer costs.

Although Ticketmaster has publicly promoted its commitment to transparency in ticket pricing, the FTC contends that internal research demonstrated consumers were less likely to complete purchases when full prices with applicable fees were shown upfront. Despite this knowledge, the company allegedly continued its practices of hiding the true cost of a ticket until the very end of the transaction in order to maximize sales, regardless of the harm to consumers.

The drip-pricing allegation matters because it reflects a broader pattern in digital marketplaces. Companies know that revealing the true cost too soon can kill sales. This case could test whether consumer psychology research, when used to obscure pricing, crosses the line into illegality.

Legal Basis of the Case

The FTC claims that the bait-and-switch pricing through advertising lower prices for tickets than what consumers must pay to purchase tickets as well as deceiving the public regarding ticket limits sold to a single party violate both the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits deceptive and unfair business practices, and the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, which specifically addresses abusive ticketing conduct (such as price hiking). The agency is seeking civil penalties, monetary relief, and injunctive measures to prevent similar conduct in the future.

By tying both the FTC Act and BOTS Act into this case, regulators are signaling that deceptive design and abusive ticketing aren’t separate problems. Rather, they are part of the same ecosystem. This framing could influence how courts view online marketplaces in other industries.

Market Impact

Ticketmaster holds a dominant position in the U.S. ticketing market, reportedly controlling over 80% of major concert venue sales while also operating one of the largest resale platforms. Ticketmaster isn’t just one player among many; it is the system. From 2019 through 2024, consumers are estimated to have spent more than $82 billion purchasing tickets through Ticketmaster, so the hidden fees represent a sizable portion of the additional profit to industry stakeholders, all at the expense of consumers and artists.

The lawsuit emphasizes the tension between Ticketmaster’s public statements opposing high-volume ticket brokers and its alleged private conduct benefiting from their activity. The outcome, however, is bigger than this one company. It is a test of whether and how regulators can rein in entrenched platforms without dismantling them entirely.