Undergraduate Law Review at Florida State University

The Price of Admission: Consumer Protection in the Ticketing Industry

—

by

Undergraduate Law Review at FSU
in

Writer: Lexi Ramsay

Editor: Alyssa Leon

Associate Editor: Francisca Puiatti

I. Introduction 

Purchasing tickets for concerts has become an increasingly frustrating process for consumers, often resulting in an unsuccessful ticket purchase and raising concerns about inequitable access to live entertainment. The modern ticketing industry, dominated by Ticketmaster, prioritizes profit maximization over consumer welfare, as evidenced by insufficient consumer protections and rising ticket prices. Meaningful reform requires the structural separation of Ticketmaster and Live Nation alongside policies that center on transparency for consumers. 

II. Structural Overview

Ticket sales were originally completed at box offices and through ticketing agencies, either in-person or over the phone.1 These early methods presented their own challenges, but as technology advanced throughout the 20th century, digital ticketing platforms began to emerge and offered an alternative solution to combat these issues.2 Ticketmaster, founded in 1976, started selling tickets online in 1996 and quickly became the leading ticket seller.3 Live Nation Entertainment, founded originally as SFX Entertainment in 1996, broadened its operations from acquiring radio stations and venues to promoting concerts.4 SFX was renamed to Live Nation in 2005 after separating from its parent company, Clear Channel Communications, and going independent, expanding its collection of venues and direct partnerships with artists.5 Ticketmaster had provided ticketing services to Live Nation under a long-term contract from 2001 until 2007, when Live Nation ended its contract to launch its own ticketing service.6 Subsequently, Ticketmaster and Live Nation entered an inconspicuous legal agreement in 2010, merging the two companies into Live Nation Entertainment.7 Despite the merger, their business operations appear separate to the public, with Ticketmaster still utilizing its own platform for ticket purchases.8 Their integrated business model, however, has significant implications for consumers regarding price transparency. 

III. Consumer Protection

When entering the Ticketmaster website, consumers regularly encounter a number of hidden fees, substantially inflated resale ticket prices from brokers and scalpers, and dynamic pricing.9 Dynamic pricing is employed by businesses to make real-time price adjustments based on market activity.10 Factors such as site traffic and artist demand directly impact ticket prices.11 Overcrowded virtual queues and rapidly changing seat availability cultivate a stressful virtual environment, limiting consumers from viewing the full range of pricing and seating options. As a result, purchasing decisions may be made without full awareness of available or alternative options. These conditions underscore the importance of federal regulatory oversight aimed at monitoring and preventing unfair or deceptive business practices, particularly through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).12 

On September 18, 2025, in Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C., the FTC, along with seven states, sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation for engaging in unlawful resale tactics and misleading artists and consumers.13 The FTC alleged that Ticketmaster willingly allowed ticket brokers to purchase large quantities of event tickets and resell them at prices significantly exceeding face value.14 Furthermore, Ticketmaster allegedly deceived customers through suppressing the true cost of tickets by withholding additional fees until the end of the checkout process.15

This lawsuit is unprecedented in the way it focused on consumer law as opposed to antitrust law, as previously applied in the 2024 case, United States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.16 The antitrust case was settled on April 15, 2026, with a federal jury finding that Live Nation Entertainment was operating as an illegal monopoly over the live entertainment industry.17 Although not primarily consumer-focused, the verdict remains a significant development in the advancement of consumer transparency in the ticketing industry. 

IV. Future Solutions

Following the recent verdict involving Live Nation Entertainment, Congressman Jamie Raskin called for the separation of Ticketmaster and Live Nation.18 A structural remedy of this magnitude would restore competition in the ticketing and promotion industries and support lower prices and fees, thereby increasing consumer satisfaction and improving access to live events.19 This reflects the overlap between antitrust and consumer protection law, which both recognize that high market concentration limits consumer choice, and the proposed separation aims to mitigate these effects. 

In addition to proposed solutions, recent federal regulatory developments have begun to address the concerns of consumers. On May 12, 2025, the FTC ban on unfair or deceptive fees, also referred to as junk fees, went into effect.20 Consequently, Ticketmaster currently employs an “all-in” pricing policy.21 This allows customers to view their total price, including the original ticket cost and other additional service fees, prior to checkout.22 This shift in policy responded directly to the claim made in the FTC lawsuit, alleging that Ticketmaster falsely advertised list prices and failed to clearly detail extra fees.23 While all-in pricing does increase upfront disclosure, it does not fully address other underlying pricing issues, such as dynamic pricing practices, that also considerably affect affordability. 

V. Conclusion

The modern ticketing system highlights a significant need for stronger transparency and regulatory reform to protect consumers. While recent federal action has begun to address issues such as hidden fees, they do not fully resolve broader concerns regarding dynamic pricing and congested ticketing platforms that limit access to live entertainment. Structural reforms, improved consumer protection policies, and pricing transparency requirements are necessary to ensure that the ticketing industry is more closely aligned with consumer welfare standards.

  1. Noela Malecela, Ticketmaster’s Sherman Act Scuffle (Taylor’s Version): An Analysis of Ticketmaster’s Alleged Monopoly and What Their Current Legal Woes Could Mean 5 (2024). ↩︎
  2. Jake Farbman, You Wanted the Best? You Got the Best! If You Can Pay for It… Antitrust Considerations and Artist-Based Solutions for Lower Concert Ticket Prices, 32 J. Intell. Prop. L. 1, 5-9 (2025). ↩︎
  3. Id. ↩︎
  4. Id. ↩︎
  5. Samantha E. Gastelum, The Ticketmaster and Live Nation Merger: Why They Should Have Never Ever Been Together, 65 B.C. L. Rev. 205 (2024). ↩︎
  6. Id. ↩︎
  7. T. J. Hunt, Increasing Competition in Live Music: The Case for Better Enforcement of the Live Nation Entertainment Consent Decree, 71 Clev. St. L. Rev. 269 (2022). ↩︎
  8. About Us, Ticketmaster, https://business.ticketmaster.com/why-ticketmaster/our-story/ (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  9. Hunt, supra note 7, at 6. ↩︎
  10. Tyler Biscontini, Dynamic Pricing (Surge Pricing), EBSCO (2023), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/dynamic-pricing-surge-pricing (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  11. Rob Davies, Ticketmaster Forced to Change Pricing and Sales Tactics After Oasis Row, The Guardian (Sep. 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/sep/25/ticketmaster-advertises-tickets-oasis-cma (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  12. 15 U.S.C. § 41–58. ↩︎
  13.  Fed. Trade Com’n, FTC Sues Live Nation and Ticketmaster for Engaging in Illegal Ticket Resale Tactics and Deceiving Artists and Consumers about Price and Ticket Limits (Sep., 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-engaging-illegal-ticket-resale-tactics-deceiving-artists-consumers (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  14. Id. ↩︎
  15. Id. ↩︎
  16. U.S. Dep’t Just., Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry (May 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  17. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Verdict: AG Sunday Announces Federal Jury Finds Live Nation/Ticketmaster Operated Monopoly Over Live Entertainment Industry (Apr. 15, 2026), https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/verdict-ag-sunday-announces-federal-jury-finds-live-nation-ticketmaster-operated-monopoly-over-live-entertainment-industry/ (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  18. H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Ranking Member Raskin’s Opening Statement at Spotlight Forum on Live Nation–Ticketmaster Monopoly (May 18, 2026), https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-s-opening-statement-at-spotlight-forum-on-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopoly (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  19. Id. ↩︎
  20. Fed. Trade Com’n, FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees to Take Effect on May 12, 2025 (May 5, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/05/ftc-rule-unfair-or-deceptive-fees-take-effect-may-12-2025 (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  21. Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Rolls Out All In Prices as the Global Standard; Outlines Improvements to the Ticketing Experience (May 12, 2025), https://business.ticketmaster.com/press-release/all-in-prices/ (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
  22. Id. ↩︎
  23.  FTC Sues Live Nation and Ticketmaster, supra note 13. ↩︎

Comments

Leave a comment