Latest News

Many of the problems consumers face with ticketing stem from one poisoned root, the monopoly in the live entertainment industry known as Live Nation/Ticketmaster. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) gave a green light for these two companies to establish a vertical monopoly. Coupled with subsequent vertical and horizontal mergers, the marketplace continued to consolidate. This resulted in a colossal powerhouse that dominated everything from artist management to concert promotion, venue management, primary ticketing, and ticket resale – basically, every element of the live events supply chain.

Even back then, Ticketmaster held a whopping 80 percent market share in primary ticketing. Instead of putting the brakes on this clearly anticompetitive merger, the government settled for some conditions that proved weak and ineffective. In 2019, the DOJ demonstrated that Live Nation/Ticketmaster violated the 2010 merger consent decree several times. They showed that Live Nation played hardball by making the provision of live concerts contingent on a venue buying into Ticketmaster ticketing services, and threatened retaliation against venues that dared to use competing ticketing services. However, instead of rolling back the merger, the DOJ opted to extend the same ineffective remedies from the original consent decree. Three years later, Ticketmaster is, once again, under investigation for the same anticompetitive conduct. 

Ticketmaster's monopoly in primary ticketing propels the company to wield its market influence extensively across the live events supply chain. Notably, Live Nation demonstrates a preference for venues under its ownership, control, or management, sidelining independent venues at their expense. These independent venues, constrained by limited options in primary ticketing and faced with the threat of event loss, find themselves compelled to adhere to Ticketmaster's constrictive contractual terms which include mandatory bundling of sports and concert tickets. Furthermore, Ticketmaster's strategies, including practices like app tying, curtail competition in the resale market and epitomize a form of "self-preferencing." This results in fan frustration and a disincentive to explore competitors in the resale market, coercing them back into Ticketmaster's predominant primary and secondary ticketing platforms for ticket purchases and sales. Their strategy has been remarkably successful with their resale business growing “nearly $4.5 billion dollars in gross transaction value for 2022, more than doubling resale gross transaction value in 2019.” 

These restrictive practices inflict damage upon artists, teams, venues, and fans alike. Independent venues are forced to pass on monopoly service fees to fans, leading to inflated ticket prices. Fans encounter elevated and often redundant ticket fees upon returning to Ticketmaster's ticketing platforms, eliminating competition and which can dramatically raise the price for both buyers and sellers. Within this space, fans also contend with subpar service and the unwarranted collection of personal data related to concert attendance and preferences.

The recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing highlighted the plight of artists with singer-songwriter Clyde Lawrence testifying that because Live Nation holds so much control across the industry, artists have practically no leverage in negotiating. Even high-profile artists such as Taylor Swift, managed by AEG, must contend with Live Nation. Live Nation's control over venues on Swift's Eras Tour left AEG, even with its own ticketing service, no option but to utilize Ticketmaster for ticketing.

Beyond the repercussions on ticket pricing and fees, Live Nation's practices impede quality and innovation in the live events markets. Evidenced by the numerous crashes and glitches on Ticketmaster's platform, monopolies exhibit little incentive to innovate for high-quality service or advanced distribution technology. Furthermore, the prospect of engaging with a monopolistic service provider in the live events market can stifle incentives for innovation within the creative arts or ticketing itself.

The secondary ticket market remains the sole avenue for fans seeking alternatives when procuring tickets. A properly functioning secondary market brings about efficiency advantages by facilitating connections between artists and fans that might otherwise elude post-primary market transactions. However, evidence abounds of Ticketmaster engaging in detrimental practices that curtail competition in the resale market, ostensibly justified under the pretext of preventing “scalping” and safeguarding fans.

For instance, practices such as ticket holdbacks and slow ticketing, involving the deliberate release of limited ticket inventory or staggered releases, artificially create scarcity and drive up ticket prices. Similarly, restricted digital ticketing, exemplified by Ticketmaster's "SafeTix" service, confines tickets to the Ticketmaster smartphone app with frequently changing QR codes, necessitating the use of Ticketmaster’s app to gain access to an event and complicating the transfer of tickets acquired from other fans or on competing marketplaces. Their restrictions have even gone so far as to invalidate a ticket initially sold by Ticketmaster and later resold by a different marketplace, which seems to be an overtly unjust practice.

Further issues include delayed ticket delivery, wherein fans receive tickets only hours before an event, complicating the process of transferring or giving away a ticket and discouraging them from exploring alternative resale services. Fans have voiced frustration over orders through ticket resellers being canceled or delayed due to Ticketmaster's unwarranted complexity in transferring tickets within their proprietary app.

Lastly, Ticketmaster's requirement to utilize their app to gain access to a ticket and the event, regardless of whether or not the ticket was purchased on a competitors platform, expands the company's consumer data repository. This data, wielded through analytics technology, enables Ticketmaster to direct fans toward its services. These restrictive policies collectively stifle competition in the resale market and create significant frustration, compelling fans to revert to Ticketmaster's primary and secondary ticketing platforms. As frustration increases, fans are likely to forego comparison shopping in the resale market, consolidating their purchases exclusively with Ticketmaster.

Fans should have the right to transfer their previously purchased tickets freely and without restrictions. Unfortunately, monopolists in the primary industry often seek to restrict the transfer of tickets on other resale platforms so that they can “double dip” and collect transaction fees from the same ticket being sold multiple times. And, in even some cases they simply ban resale altogether. The digital nature of today’s tickets only makes matters worse. We believe once a consumer purchases their ticket, it is theirs to do with as they please, regardless if it’s paper or electronic. 

Despite stiff opposition from industry – Live Nation/Ticketmaster, other primary ticketing companies, promoters, artist groups, teams, and venues – Lawmakers in six states have chosen to empower fans and enshrine the right to transferability. This right should be protected for all fans in every state. Ticket transferability stands as a cornerstone of consumer protection for avid fans. In the world of live events, fans often find themselves securing tickets six months or longer in advance, only to have life's unexpected twists intervene. This rings particularly true for loyal fans who invest in season tickets, often holding multiple tickets for an entire sports season. When circumstances prevent a fan from attending an event, the ability to resell their ticket becomes a lifeline, allowing them to recoup potential losses. However, the significance of fan resale extends beyond individual convenience; it ushers in a wave of consumer savings.

The power of ticket holders to freely transfer tickets they've already purchased fuels the competitive secondary market for sports tickets. Given that market prices typically reflect the laws of supply and demand, many ticket holders willingly offer their tickets at a price lower than their initial purchase cost. This is true of both fans and professional ticket resellers. This phenomenon translates into tangible savings for fellow fans, making live events more accessible and affordable.

Ticket Buyer Bill of Rights Coalition member, Sports Fans Coalition, recently analyzed more than 25 million tickets purchased on the secondary market since 2017 and determined that the secondary market generated nearly $260M in savings for fans. On average fans saved enough money per ticket to afford a beer at the game. A common criticism opponents of an open, transparent, secondary market make is that the secondary market only price gouges fans. In sports this is not the case, as the same study by Sports Fans Coalition shows that nearly a third of the time, tickets sell below face value to major league sporting events.

Protect Ticket Rights, another member of the Coalition, did a similar study but for concert tickets. PTR looked at nearly 250,000 tickets purchased on the secondary market in 2023 to the top concerts and tours and found that consumers at these specific events alone saved more than $7.5 million by buying from secondary ticket exchanges rather than buying directly from the primary event organizer. For individual concerts, fans saved an average of $46.34 per ticket. For tours, the average savings were $36.84. In both cases, fans saved enough money to buy merchandise to commemorate what is undoubtedly a once-in-a-lifetime event. 

Not only does ticket transferability protect fans from losing out when they get sick, transferability protects fans’ ability to comparison shop for deals, and these data points clearly demonstrate that many fans can find substantial savings. 2022 polling from Protect Ticket Rights showed that nationally, 81.6% of respondents support transferability and nearly the same amount (79.3%) back rules to protect that right. While indeed both the primary and secondary ticketing markets require reform to make buying and selling tickets more transparent and protected, it is important to note that the secondary resale market represents the only form of competition in ticketing other than a venue box office or its exclusively contracted primary seller. Protecting transferability protects competition. 

The ticketing marketplace is one of the most opaque industries consumers interact with on a regular basis. Fans often don't know the total price of their ticket until the last minute, how many tickets are actually available for sale or that might go on sale at a future date, or even whether they are buying a ticket or the promise of a ticket. Fans deserve a more transparent and fair marketplace which allows them to meaningfully participate in the process from beginning to end. 

All-in Pricing

Much like elsewhere in the economy, drip pricing in the live event industry is detrimental to consumers as it inhibits a fan’s ability to accurately comparison shop. When individuals purchase tickets, whether on the primary or secondary market, they are routinely confronted with substantial additional fees atop the ticket's face value. Shockingly, these extra costs are seldom, if ever, disclosed in the initial advertisements, only emerging at the eleventh hour during the checkout process. Failing to advertise the true and final ticket price constitutes a deceptive and misleading practice, ultimately resulting in consumers paying more than they would have if the advertising had been forthright about the complete cost of the ticket.

The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) examination of the primary ticketing market unveiled a disconcerting trend found, that for the majority of the events scrutinized, mandatory fees remained conspicuously absent from the advertised price. Consumers could only learn the price of the ticket after selecting a seat, navigating through additional screens, creating an account, or logging into the website, and finally, clicking on "order details." The GAO also found that in a staggering 91% of surveyed events, ticket fees were presented in a significantly smaller font size than the ticket price itself. On average, these primary market fees inflate the face value of a ticket by an astonishing 27%, with some fees soaring to an exorbitant 58% of the ticket's price. Beyond the alarming rate of these fees lies the crux of the issue—the lack of transparent upfront disclosure—a real unfairness to consumers.

Regrettably, the practice of drip pricing extends its reach into the secondary market, further hindering consumers' ability to make well-informed decisions. It stifles fair competition by obscuring the genuine ticket cost until the final stages of the transaction. On average, the fees imposed on secondary market consumers inflate ticket costs by a staggering 31%, with some fees reaching a shocking 56%. As if navigating the ticket-buying process weren't hard enough, the GAO's investigation uncovered another startling revelation: a striking 80% of surveyed marketplaces impose an unexpected "print-at-home" fee, ranging from $2.50 to a substantial $7.95.

Taken together, the proliferation of drip pricing in both the primary and secondary ticketing market impedes a consumer's ability to comparison shop, and make informed purchasing decisions. Likewise, drip pricing has also created a perverse incentive for ticket sellers. With drip pricing, the advertised face value of a ticket becomes increasingly irrelevant. Rather than competing on the price of the ticket and service, ticket sellers have an incentive to see who can build in the most hidden fees into the purchasing process. Legislation is needed to correct this market failure and allow for consumers to properly compare ticket prices.

Deceptive Ticket Holdbacks 

Undisclosed ticket holdbacks are deceptive. Many times original ticket sellers withhold up to half of all tickets for shows as documented by the US GAO, New York Attorney General, and the City and County of Honolulu. This scheme was a huge problem for the Taylor Swift tour, as was documented by the Wall Street Journal. The Journal estimated that 94% of Swift tickets were held back for those with special or exclusive access. Yet while Ticketmaster initially claimed tickets had sold out, there were several examples of Ticketmaster releasing additional tickets for sale in the days leading into the concert that had been “held back” until that moment. 

This deceptive industry scheme creates fake scarcity to induce a ticket-buying frenzy so that consumers panic, and in believing there are few tickets left, are compelled to buy now, often at higher prices than anticipated. Consumers without special or exclusive access to pre-sales are abused during the public on-sale of tickets, where they may miss work and spend hours in an online waiting room only to be left with intentionally opaque and costly options. Even those that have special access must suffer through “bear attacks.” When the true inventory of tickets is not presented to fans, they are not capable of making the best possible purchase decision.  

This past spring, Sports Fans Coalition polled Colorado voters on a number of ticketing related issues and found that nearly 90% of those surveyed support mandating the disclosure of ticket holdbacks. Knowing exactly how many tickets are available for purchase may change a fan’s decision about whether it is worth waiting in line or committing to a clunky online queue. 

Speculative Ticketing 

The practice known as speculative ticket sales involves the sale of tickets by a seller who does not currently possess or have constructive possession of those tickets but intends to acquire them in the future. 

Without proper disclosure, this practice misleads consumers into believing the seller already has the tickets they are selling and that the order is secure. In reality, if the seller does not possess or have constructive possession of the tickets, the order could be at risk if the seller isn’t able to obtain the ticket they offered. These consumer harms are exacerbated if the consumer traveled for the event under the false assumption they had a ticket. 

To ensure transparency and protect consumers, it is crucial that speculative sales are clearly disclosed as such, allowing buyers to understand the nature of their purchase and make an informed purchasing decision. Moreover, these transactions should always come with a guarantee, assuring buyers that they will receive what they paid for or a money-back guarantee if the seller cannot fulfill the order. This approach enhances transparency, as consumers are fully aware of what they are purchasing and protected by a guarantee of a refunds if the ticket is ultimately not obtained. Buyers are not led to believe that ticket fulfillment is guaranteed from the outset. 

Some proposals seek to ban speculative ticketing altogether. While banning deceptive speculative ticketing is good, outright bans can be more difficult to enforce than disclosure requirements. In the case of a ban, fans should at least have the option to contract with a reseller to procure them a ticket – so long as they are made aware they are buying a service and not a ticket itself. Known as a “ticket procurement service,” these kinds of transactions can provide fans flexibility when purchasing tickets to their favorite events. In many cases, fans have to wait in a digital queue at a specific time to buy tickets. For many fans this causes issues with work obligations, travel, illness, or other complications that may prevent them from accessing the queue. Contracting with a professional who can wait in line provides fans access they otherwise would not have, creates innovation in the marketplace, and can help provide competition to the marketplace. 

Deceptive Ticket Websites

Regrettably, there are bad actors in the marketplace that use misleading URLs, link titles, imagery, and logos on their websites to , create an illusion that convinces fans they are acquiring tickets from the primary market or an official box office. In reality, they are unwittingly engaging with a third party posing as an official source. Deceitful and misleading behavior with respect to websites should be prohibited.

Ten States have passed laws that prohibit the use of deceptive URLs or misleading website content. These states are California, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Dark Patterns

Clear and conspicuous disclosures need to be the standard for all transparency provisions. However, even that standard may not be sufficient to prevent dark patterns from taking advantage of fans. While hidden fees are the most obvious example of dark patterns, ticketing companies use tools like countdown timers, or messages suggesting they are almost sold out to trick fans into making rushed decisions. As, John Breyault of the National Consumers League, a founding Coalition member, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Anyone who has ever rushed through the process of buying a concert ticket and knuckled under to ticketers’ exorbitant fees, thanks to a ticking time clock at the top of a screen, is familiar with the dark patterns.” Dark patterns should also be eliminated.

Price floors and price caps set by primary sellers only restrict consumer choice and harm fans. Primary sellers shouldn’t be allowed to tell fans the price at which they can resell a ticket. Doing so only leaves more seats empty come show time, and may jeopardize the substantial savings consumers experience by participating in the existing secondary marketplace. Consumers are best protected in an open and transparent marketplace where regulated businesses have to compete in plain sight for their business and where the products being offered for sale are as apparent as the refund protections and guarantees offered by the seller. In ticketing, the advent of online ticket resale marketplaces more than 20 years ago saved consumers from the risk of buying tickets from rogue “scalpers” outside of venues. Arbitrary price fixing could, however, send ticket resale back to the dark alleys where consumer protections don’t exist. 

Price Floors

In 2016, the NFL sought to exert control over prices in the secondary ticket market by setting a price floor. This came under scrutiny when the New York Attorney General's office launched an investigation into the NFL for potential antitrust violations related to its NFL Ticket Exchange. The investigation revealed that the NFL's implementation of price floors, which set a minimum value for ticket sales, artificially inflated ticket prices. The New York Attorney General argued that these price floors deceived fans into believing they were purchasing tickets at market prices, when, in reality, they were often paying prices above the actual market value. This situation was further exacerbated by the league mandating the use of one official ticket exchange, where these price floors prevented ticket prices from aligning with demand, particularly for teams with a less-than-stellar performance record. 

Price Ceilings

Just as an artist cannot dictate how and for what price a fan resells a vinyl record after they purchase it, the same should apply to tickets. Proponents of these kinds of price ceilings argue that they prevent prices from “skyrocketing” on the secondary market. However, that theory does not hold true under economic testing. The CATO Institute’s analysis of three seasons worth of National Hockey League resale prices showed that states which repealed price ceilings had no change in prices when compared to states which still had resale caps; instead price ceiling laws only have a chilling effect on ticket supply to the secondary market.

Price controls set by the primary market harm fans, artificially restrict supply, and stifle competition and should be prohibited.

Fans should not have to compete with computer software (bots) designed to scoop up tickets. In addition, companies should be required to report any illegal bot behavior they catch to law enforcement. 

While software bots employed to acquire tickets are a scourge on the ticket buying ecosystem, it's important to recognize that primary ticketing companies, like Ticketmaster have conveniently pointed to bots as the sole culprits for all of the problems fans face when buying tickets. Federal law already prohibits the use of bots to unfairly purchase event tickets. However, this legislation has only been enforced once, primarily because these ticketing giants have failed to report such criminal activities to law enforcement, leaving the Federal Trade Commission with little ability to locate and penalize offenders. 

Given their significant influence and market presence, corporations like Ticketmaster and AXS possess the unique capacity to play a pivotal role in combating bots. In 2018, Ticketmaster claims to have stopped more than 10 billion bot purchase attempts. Data on these failed attempts would be extremely valuable to the FTC’s enforcement efforts. However, it is unclear whether Ticketmaster shared this data with the FTC, as if they had many advocates believe there would have been more enforcement actions.  

Establishing reporting requirements on illegal bots usage is a pragmatic and necessary stride toward enhancing the overall fan experience. It is incumbent upon these industry leaders to collaborate with law enforcement, making concerted efforts to halt bot-related misconduct and restore fairness to ticket distribution. 

Any legislation should require that all market participants report known illegal bots usage to enable law enforcement to finally put a stop to this criminal practice. 

Ticket buyers must be assured of their right to access remedies through the public court system when they are deceived, defrauded, or otherwise harmed by sellers in the marketplace. However, the take-it-or-leave-it terms and conditions for concert, sports, and other event tickets contain requirements that force consumers to resolve disputes with ticket sellers and venues in private, secret arbitration proceedings instead of the public court system. These forced arbitration clauses often also prohibit consumers from banding together in class actions to address widespread or systemic harm. Forced arbitration must be banned from all fine-print language that accompanies ticket purchases and other fan-seller interactions in the ticketing marketplace.

A forced arbitration clause typically dictates the rules, including choosing the arbitration provider, the arbitration’s location, the payment terms, and setting forth other rules such as secrecy requirements. Private arbitration generally lacks procedural protections that are assured in the public courts, including the ability to obtain key evidence necessary to prove one’s case, and the right to appeal, which is rarely available. Studies have shown that consumers forced into arbitration are less likely to win cases and are generally disadvantaged.

In the event ticket market, arbitration clauses typically appear in the fine print on the “back” of electronic tickets or are situated on corporate websites via click wrap or browsewrap agreements. In a single transaction to purchase tickets, a ticket buyer online may come across boxes and links to multiple terms and conditions from a ticket seller as well as a venue, both of which will impose forced arbitration requirements before a dispute even arises.

In the last several years, consumers have attempted to pursue legal complaints against sellers and venues for serious and valid claims, such as discrimination under the Americans with Disability Act; negligence that caused serious physical injuries at venues; the retroactive changing of a refund policy after the coronavirus pandemic, in violation of the law; failure to provide a full refund for tickets purchased for events canceled due to the pandemic; and anticompetitive practices, including “supracompetitive fees on primary and secondary ticket purchases on the seller’s online platforms.” In these instances, the ticket seller or venue sought to enforce an arbitration clause and deprive the consumers of their day in court. Consumers also pursued claims on behalf of themselves and others who were harmed by the same alleged misconduct, but class action bans in the forced arbitration clauses often prevented consumers from doing so. 

Recently, when Ticketmaster’s ticketing platform caused upheaval during the sale of tickets for the singer Taylor Swift’s “Era’s Tour,” harmed concertgoers filed a class action, alleging “anticompetitive and misleading conduct with respect to the (seller’s) handling of the presale, sale, and resale of concert tickets” to the tour. While it is in the public interest for such claims with potentially broad impact to be heard in open court, the ticket seller is seeking to force its customers into private, secret arbitration. 

Consumer rights are not meaningful when consumers cannot enforce them. Granting fans a private right of action is critical to ensuring the law is followed. 

Another legislative solution that could address some of the harms imposed by the monopoly is to prohibit the ticketing provider’s use of exclusive contracts with venues, a favored tactic of Live Nation. The bill would allow, though not require, venues to contract with more than one ticketing company.

Due to their monopoly status, Ticketmaster can control venues and force them into exclusive contractual obligations to use Ticketmaster ticketing services. Venues fear losing Live Nation concerts if they don't use Ticketmaster. While other companies desire to offer “primary ticketing services” for event organizers, none come close to Ticketmaster’s size, scale, and influence. Ticketmaster’s closest competitor, AEG/AXS, was hired by Taylor Swift to promote her tour. But even it acknowledged it did not have the option of selling Swift tickets through its platform since most stadiums booked for the tour were contractually bound to sell tickets exclusively through Ticketmaster. This venue example is indicative of the cabal that Live Nation/Ticketmaster has methodically developed over decades.

Exclusive contracts seek to lock in a venue or artist into using only one primary ticketer. This intentionally stifles competition and can lead to higher fees for consumers. A test case that demonstrates why enacting non-exclusive contracting is pro consumer can be found by examining the Los Angeles venue, Crypto.com Arena—home to both the Lakers, ticketed by Ticketmaster, and the Clippers, ticketed by AXS. A recent survey by Sports Fans Coalition revealed that Ticketmaster’s fees on primary tickets for Los Angeles Lakers games are higher than AXS’s fees for Los Angeles Clippers tickets, despite being at the same arena. However, these fees are not nearly as high as Ticketmaster’s average fees for other NBA tickets—supporting the idea that non-exclusive contracting can help inject competition and lower prices on fans.