FTC and States Sue Live Nation and Ticketmaster for Deceptive Ticketing Practices
Key Takeaways
The FTC and seven state attorneys general filed a joint lawsuit against Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster on September 17, 2025.
Allegations include violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, and multiple state consumer protection laws.
The FTC claims Ticketmaster used deceptive pricing tactics, hiding mandatory fees that inflated ticket costs by up to 44%.
The platform allegedly enabled and supported ticket brokers in bypassing purchase limits—undermining fair consumer access.
Ticketmaster reportedly earned over $6.4 billion in hidden fees and $986 million in resale fees from 2019–2024.
The BOTS Act prohibits using software (bots) to circumvent ticketing limits—allegedly ignored by Ticketmaster.
The case is notable as the first to jointly allege violations of both the FTC Act and BOTS Act by a major ticketing platform.
If successful, the lawsuit could significantly influence digital commerce practices and platform accountability in the ticketing industry.
FTC and States File Landmark Complaint Against Ticketmaster and Live Nation
On September 17, 2025, the FTC, together with the Attorneys General of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia, jointly filed a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment and its ticketing platform Ticketmaster. The complaint alleges that the companies engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTS Act). Each of the seven states has also brought claims under its respective state consumer protection statutes.
This case is notable for being the first in which the FTC has simultaneously alleged violations of both the FTC Act and the BOTS Act by a major ticketing company. The FTC claims that Ticketmaster has consistently misled consumers by displaying artificially low ticket prices online, only to reveal significantly higher prices at checkout due to mandatory service, processing, and other hidden fees. These fees can increase the final ticket price by 24% to 44%—a practice that the FTC argues violates long-standing federal protections against deceptive advertising.
Understanding Section 5 of the FTC Act
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) is a foundational legal provision that prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” The FTC defines a practice as deceptive if it misleads or is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances and if the misleading claim is material to the consumer's purchasing decision. A practice is unfair if it causes substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
In this case, the FTC argues that displaying “deceptively low” ticket prices, which omit substantial mandatory fees until the final stage of purchase, qualifies as both deceptive and unfair under the FTC Act. The lawsuit claims that internal Ticketmaster research found consumers were less likely to complete a purchase when the full price was shown upfront—yet the company chose to maintain its misleading practices to increase conversion rates and revenue.
What Is the BOTS Act?
The Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 2016 is a federal law designed to protect consumers by prohibiting the use of automated bots to purchase tickets in violation of event ticketing rules. The law specifically makes it illegal to:
Circumvent security or access control systems designed to enforce ticket purchasing limits.
Bypass ticket purchasing order rules intended to ensure fair access.
Resell tickets obtained through such circumvention.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Ticketmaster failed to enforce safeguards that would prevent brokers from using bots or other tactics to acquire massive quantities of tickets, far beyond the per-customer limits publicly promoted by the platform. Rather than block these practices, Ticketmaster allegedly supported high-volume brokers through a proprietary software platform called TradeDesk, which allowed them to consolidate and manage resale inventory from thousands of Ticketmaster accounts.
A Closer Look at the Alleged Conduct
The FTC alleges that Ticketmaster not only misrepresented ticket prices but also falsely claimed to enforce strict ticket purchase limits. While ordinary consumers are told they may only purchase a limited number of tickets to an event, internal audits revealed that certain brokers were allowed to purchase thousands of tickets across multiple accounts. Just five brokers reportedly controlled over 6,345 Ticketmaster accounts and held more than 246,000 tickets to over 2,500 events. Ticketmaster allegedly looked the other way, choosing not to implement effective third-party identity verification tools, citing concerns that such measures would be “too effective” and could reduce company revenue.
Even more concerning, the FTC claims that Ticketmaster profited not just from the initial ticket sale (the primary market), but also from secondary resale transactions—what the agency calls “triple-dipping.” The company earns revenue when brokers purchase tickets, when those tickets are resold on Ticketmaster’s own secondary market, and again from consumer resales. Between 2019 and 2024, Ticketmaster allegedly collected nearly $986 million in resale fees alone. Brokers who sold large volumes of tickets were reportedly given discounted seller fees, incentivizing them to list even more tickets on the platform.
State-Level Consumer Protection Violations Explained
In addition to federal claims, each of the seven states involved in the suit is pursuing violations under its own consumer protection statutes. These laws share a common goal: protecting consumers from misleading, unfair, or abusive business practices.
Colorado – Colorado Consumer Protection Act
This act prohibits deceptive trade practices, including misrepresenting the characteristics, benefits, or prices of goods or services. It allows the Attorney General to pursue enforcement and seek restitution for harmed consumers.
Florida – Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA)
FDUTPA broadly prohibits any unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts in the conduct of any trade or commerce. It is designed to protect both consumers and legitimate businesses from fraud and unfairness in the marketplace.
Illinois – Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
These two statutes prohibit businesses from engaging in deception, fraud, false pretense, or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of goods and services. Illinois law provides for both governmental enforcement and private civil remedies.
Nebraska – Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Nebraska’s law targets conduct that creates confusion or misunderstanding about the price, source, sponsorship, or approval of goods and services, similar to federal deceptive advertising laws.
Tennessee – Consumer Protection Act
Tennessee’s law prohibits a wide range of unfair or deceptive practices, including false advertising and price misrepresentation. The Act allows for civil penalties and consumer restitution.
Utah – Consumer Sales Practices Act
This statute is designed to protect Utah consumers from deceptive, unconscionable, or fraudulent sales practices. It prohibits sellers from misrepresenting the price or terms of sale, and it empowers the state to enforce penalties for violations.
Virginia – Consumer Protection Act
Virginia law prohibits deceptive representations in connection with consumer transactions, including false pricing and failure to disclose material facts about the cost or availability of services.
Impact on the Ticketing Industry and Consumers
This lawsuit could mark a turning point for how online ticketing platforms operate. If the FTC and states are successful, we may see stricter enforcement of ticket limit rules, greater transparency in pricing, and more robust tools to prevent ticket bot abuse. The suit also highlights the importance of federal and state cooperation in enforcing consumer protection laws in the digital economy.
The case may set new legal standards not only for live entertainment but for all e-commerce platforms that rely on opaque pricing models and third-party resellers.
Conclusion
The joint lawsuit by the FTC and seven state Attorneys General signals an aggressive regulatory stance against deceptive digital marketplaces. By targeting one of the largest players in the ticketing industry, the case could have far-reaching implications for how companies advertise prices, enforce purchase limits, and design technology systems that either enable or prevent consumer abuse.
For legal professionals in the data privacy and consumer protection space, this case underscores the increasing convergence of antitrust scrutiny, digital platform accountability, and consumer transparency. Businesses operating online—especially in high-demand markets like entertainment, travel, or e-commerce—should closely examine their own practices to ensure compliance with both federal and state consumer protection laws.
