Ticketmaster loses dismissal bid: what the resale ruling means for fans

Ticketmaster and Live Nation failed to get the FTC’s ticket-resale lawsuit dismissed in a September 28 ruling in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The decision keeps claims over ticket limits and pricing alive, but does not award fans refunds or establish that the companies broke the law.

The central point: ticket platforms are not automatically exempt from the Better Online Ticket Sales Act, known as the BOTS Act. “The BOTS Act does not preclude platforms from facing liability, and the Court will not read it as doing so,” Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong wrote.

What the Ticketmaster ruling actually decides

Bloomberg Law reported on September 29 that the FTC and seven states had adequately set out claims under the BOTS Act, the FTC Act and state consumer-protection laws. Frimpong denied the companies’ attempt to dismiss every claim, allowing the case to continue.

That is a procedural decision, not a verdict. At this stage, the court considers whether the allegations, taken as true for purposes of the motion, meet the legal requirements to proceed. “This Court is not deciding at this stage whether the FTC’s and the states’ accusations are true,” Frimpong wrote, according to TicketNews.

Why the FTC says ticket limits failed fans

The FTC’s complaint alleges that professional brokers acquired tickets beyond artists’ purchase limits, then resold them through Ticketmaster. The agency says this reduced ordinary fans’ access to tickets at the prices artists set while generating additional fees for the platform. Live Nation and Ticketmaster dispute the allegations.

In its announcement of the lawsuit, the FTC said an internal review identified five brokers controlling 6,345 Ticketmaster accounts and holding 246,407 concert tickets across 2,594 events. Those are figures cited by the agency in support of its case, not findings that the brokers or platform acted unlawfully.

The agency also points to TradeDesk, software it says helped brokers manage tickets purchased through multiple accounts in one interface. According to the FTC, that system enabled Ticketmaster to identify high-volume buyers exceeding limits. The complaint alleges the companies nevertheless declined measures that could have enforced those limits more effectively.

Why the BOTS Act can apply to platforms

Ticketmaster argued that the BOTS Act protects ticketing platforms from resellers rather than exposing the platforms themselves to liability, TicketNews reports. It also argued that exceeding a purchase limit alone is insufficient: the law concerns circumvention of technological measures used to enforce restrictions.

Frimpong found that the complaint sufficiently identified such controls, including purchasing-interface restrictions and TicketCounter, a system described as able to analyse activity across accounts. She also rejected the argument that circumvention must involve hacking or comparable technological manipulation. Avoiding or evading a restriction could qualify, allowing the allegations about multiple or fictitious accounts to proceed.

The companies separately argued that brokers and consumers sell resale tickets, while Ticketmaster merely operates the marketplace. But the complaint alleges that Ticketmaster voids the original ticket and issues a new one to the resale buyer. At this stage, the judge found that description sufficient to allege a role beyond a passive marketplace.

A separate Maryland BOTS Act case against broker Key Investment Group also featured in the arguments. Ticketmaster cited its position as the party whose safeguards brokers allegedly evaded. Frimpong concluded that potential liability for brokers did not rule out potential liability for platforms, according to TicketNews.

Why the “+Fees” pricing claims survived

The case also challenges earlier pricing displays. The FTC alleges that mandatory fees could reach 44% of a ticket’s cost and that Ticketmaster advertised prices below what consumers ultimately had to pay. These are historical allegations: TicketNews reports that the company subsequently adopted all-in pricing.

Ticketmaster argued that displaying “+Fees” informed buyers of additional charges. Frimpong called that qualifier “vague and ambiguous” because it did not explain their size, TicketNews reports. She also cited precedent allowing a practice to be deceptive at a consumer’s initial contact even when more information arrives later.

Claims about advertised ticket limits survived too. Ticketmaster argued that its limits were real and disclosed. The government’s case, however, is that the company presented those limits as meaningful restrictions while allegedly knowing some brokers routinely evaded them. The court found that theory adequately pleaded.

What Ticketmaster says—and what happens next

“We continue to believe that this lawsuit is misguided and will ultimately fail,” Ticketmaster told Billboard after the ruling, according to TicketNews. The company also maintained that it remains a leader in fighting bots and other methods scalpers use to acquire tickets.

The FTC is seeking civil penalties and other monetary relief the court considers appropriate. Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia joined the agency’s lawsuit. Whether the claims ultimately succeed, and what relief might follow, remain unresolved.

For fans, the immediate change is that the challenge to Ticketmaster’s resale and pricing practices continues. The ruling does not guarantee cheaper tickets, improved availability or compensation. A scheduling-conference order is the stated next step; no subsequent conference date or trial date is established in the reports cited here.