By Anna Karapetyan
I. Introduction: The Ticketmaster Controversy
For many music fans, buying a concert ticket today feels less like making a simple purchase and more like navigating a high-pressured online marketplace, competing against thousands of other fans, bots, and rapidly disappearing tickets. Fans often log into ticket sales the moment they open, only to find themselves placed in long digital queues, watching tickets disappear within minutes.[1] Even when tickets appear available, the final price frequently changes as additional fees are added at checkout.[2] For those unable to secure tickets during the initial sale, the only remaining option is the resale market, where prices are often several times higher than the original ticket value.[3]
Part of the frustration stems from the lack of transparency in the ticket-buying process. Many consumers feel they are entering the marketplace without fully understanding how prices are determined or why certain tickets are no longer available. Fans may know the final price they are asked to pay, but they often have little insight into how that price was calculated, who set it, or whether the purchasing process is functioning fairly. This lack of transparency has also created growing tension between fans and artists, as consumers increasingly question who is responsible for rising prices and limited access to tickets.[4]
These frustrations have become increasingly visible in recent years. The 2022 Taylor Swift Eras Tour presale drew national attention after overwhelming demand caused widespread system failures and left many fans unable to purchase tickets at all.[5] In response, Swift’s team implemented more controlled distribution methods, including a system to give “fan[s] who received a boost during the Verified Fan presale but did not purchase tickets” an additional opportunity to purchase tickets, reflecting how artists are increasingly forced to adapt to a ticketing system that many view as broken.[6] Similar issues have continued across other major tours, including recent public criticism from artists such as Olivia Dean regarding resale markups and pricing practices.[7] These events have made clear that the concerns surrounding ticketing are not isolated. They reflect broader patterns in how tickets are sold and distributed.
In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, alleging that aspects of their ticketing practices may violate federal consumer protection law.[8] The complaint focuses on issues such as pricing transparency, ticket availability, and resale practices. These allegations raise a central question: are the frustrations consumers experience simply the result of high demand, or do they reflect conduct that may already be unlawful?
This Note examines modern concert ticketing through the lens of federal consumer protection law, focusing on Section 5 of the FTC Act.[9] It analyzes practices such as hidden fees, resale pricing, and ticket purchasing limits to evaluate whether they may constitute unfair or deceptive conduct. It also considers how the structure of the live music industry shapes the consumer experience, and whether regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions offer a more effective model for protecting ticket buyers.
II. Behind the Curtain: How the Ticketing Market Works
Understanding the concerns surrounding ticketing requires a basic understanding of how the live music industry operates. Concerts involve a network of participants, including artists, promoters, venues, and ticketing companies, each of which plays a role in bringing live events to consumers.[10]
Promoters are responsible for organizing tours and financing events. They negotiate with artists, secure venues, and coordinate logistics such as marketing and ticket distribution. Large promoters such as Live Nation and AEG operate at a national and global scale and “purchase entire tours.” In return, they receive a share of ticket revenue and other event-related income.[11]
Venues provide the physical location where concerts take place, but they also influence how tickets are sold. Many venues enter into exclusive agreements with specific ticketing platforms, which means that consumers cannot choose where to purchase tickets. Instead, the venue determines which platform will handle ticket sales for each event.[12] For example, AEG owns and operates venues including Crypto.com Arena, allowing it to control not only the venue itself but also key aspects of how events are promoted and ticketed.[13]
Ticketing companies serve as the primary interface between the industry and consumers. Platforms such as Ticketmaster manage ticket sales, operate queue systems during high-demand releases, and process payments.[14] They also collect service fees and other charges associated with ticket purchases, which are often shared among different participants in the industry.[15]
Over time, consolidation within the live music industry has concentrated control over these roles. In 2010, Live Nation merged with Ticketmaster, combining the largest concert promoter with the most dominant ticketing platform in the United States.[16] The merger created a vertically integrated company that operates across promotion, venues, and ticketing.[17] Vertical integration refers to a structure in which a single company controls multiple stages of a business process.[18]
This structure has important consequences for consumers. Because many venues rely on exclusive ticketing agreements, fans often have no meaningful alternative when purchasing tickets.[19] If they want to attend a particular event, they must use the designated platform, regardless of pricing or purchasing conditions. In effect, this concentration of control can limit competition in the ticketing market and has led critics and regulators to characterize the system as operating with monopolistic features, particularly in markets where Live Nation controls both promotion and ticketing.[20]
These dynamics have drawn scrutiny from regulators. The Department of Justice has raised antitrust concerns regarding Live Nation’s market position,[21] while the FTC has focused on whether specific practices within the ticketing system are unfair or misleading to consumers.[22] Together, these concerns highlight a key issue. When consumers lack meaningful choice, transparency and fairness in the purchasing process become increasingly important.
III. The Legal Framework: FTC Consumer Protection Law
The primary legal framework governing the practices discussed in this Note is Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 5 prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”[23] This standard is intentionally broad and allows the FTC to address a wide range of business conduct that may harm consumers.
A practice is considered “deceptive” if it involves a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer and is material to the consumer’s decision-making.[24] In other words, the focus is not only on what is explicitly stated, but also on what is left out or presented in a way that could create a misleading impression.
A practice is considered “unfair” if it causes or is likely to cause a substantial injury to consumers, where that injury is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.[25] This framework is particularly relevant in situations where consumers face structural limitations that prevent them from avoiding certain harms.
The FTC has increasingly applied these principles to digital marketplaces, where pricing structures, disclosures, and user interfaces can influence consumer behavior in less visible ways.[26] Practices such as “drip pricing,” in which additional fees are revealed only at later stages of a transaction, have drawn particular scrutiny because they can distort how consumers evaluate the true cost of a purchase.[27]
The FTC’s 2025 lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster places modern ticketing prices squarely within the scope of Section 5 by alleging conduct that may constitute both deception and unfairness. The complaint highlights how pricing disclosures, representations of ticket availability, and resale structures may influence decision-making and impose harms that are not reasonably avoidable, providing a framework for evaluating whether these practices violate federal consumer protection law.[28]
IV. Ticketing Practices Under Scrutiny
A. Hidden Fees and Drip Pricing
One of the most common complaints about ticket purchases involves the way prices are presented. Consumers often see an initial ticket price, only to encounter additional fees at checkout that significantly increase the total cost. These fees may include service charges, processing fees, and other mandatory additions that are not fully disclosed upfront.[29]
From a consumer protection perspective, this practice raises concerns about deception. If consumers are led to believe that a ticket costs a certain amount but are only shown the full price later in the process, their ability to make an informed decision is affected. The FTC has identified drip pricing as a practice that can mislead consumers by obscuring the true cost of a transaction.[30]
In the context of concert ticketing, this issue is amplified by time pressure. Consumers are often required to act quickly due to high demand, leaving little opportunity to reassess their decision once additional fees are revealed. This combination of incomplete information and urgency raises questions about whether the pricing process is consistent with consumer protection principles.
In 2025, the FTC finalized a rule targeting “bait-and-switch” pricing used to “hide total prices and mislead people about fees in the live-event ticketing [industry].”[31] In response, Ticketmaster began implementing “all-in pricing,” displaying the full ticket price upfront rather than adding mandatory fees later in the purchasing process.[32] This shift marks a departure from prior practices and suggests that regulatory pressure and public scrutiny have begun to reshape how ticket prices are presented to consumers.
- Ticket Availability and Purchase Limits
Ticketing platforms frequently advertise limits on the number of tickets that a single consumer can purchase. These limits are often presented as a way to prevent scalping and ensure fairness in distribution. However, regulators have alleged that these limits are not always enforced consistently. The FTC has specifically alleged that promoters “routinely allow ticket brokers to exceed ticket limits” through the use of multiple accounts and automated purchasing software (“bots”), which can rapidly acquire large quantities of tickets before individual consumers have a meaningful opportunity to purchase them.[33] As a result, tickets can appear to sell out immediately even when they later reappear on secondary platforms, calling into question whether the initial representation of availability was accurate.
Separate from enforcement issues, ticket availability may also be affected by presale systems that reduce the number of tickets released to the general public at face value. Tickets are often distributed through presale programs before the general public sale begins, with access granted to select groups based on factors such as credit card affiliation or fan club membership.[34] For example, American Express and Citi frequently offer presale access to their cardholders, providing early purchasing opportunities for certain concerts.[35]
These dynamics raise concerns under both deception and unfairness standards. If consumers are misled about availability, their purchasing decisions are affected. At the same time, the inability to access tickets through the primary market may force consumers into higher-priced resale markets, creating additional financial harm.
- Resale Markets
The resale market in the United States has become a central feature of the modern ticketing system. Historically, a “sold out” show meant tickets were no longer available. Today, with platforms such as StubHub, SeatGeek, and Vivid Seats, tickets are almost always available, but often at significantly higher prices.[36] Resellers frequently rely on bots to purchase tickets at face value and resell them at a markup, capturing profits that would otherwise have gone to artists or promoters.[37] Thus, large quantities of tickets end up on secondary platforms even when real fans are unable to purchase them at their original price.
Tickets that fans were not able to purchase during the initial sale will likely become available again, but availability does not necessarily ensure accessibility. Resale tickets are often sold for prices substantially higher than the original value of the ticket, with no meaningful cap on price increases.[38] For many consumers, resale is not a choice but a necessity. Once primary sales are exhausted, resale markets become the only way to obtain tickets. This creates a system in which consumers may pay substantially more than the original price, even when the underlying demand has not fundamentally changed.
The relationship between primary ticketing platforms and resale markets has drawn regulatory attention. When the same system facilitates both the initial ticket sale and its resale, companies can “triple dip” on fees, even as prices increase for consumers.[39] If platforms benefit from both the initial sale and subsequent resale transactions, this raises questions about incentives and transparency. Even if certain practices are technically permissible, their combined effect may produce outcomes that are inconsistent with consumer protection goals.
V. Comparative Regulation Abroad
Regulators outside the United States have taken a more proactive approach to ticketing practices. In the United Kingdom, the Competition and Markets Authority has required clearer disclosures regarding pricing structures and ticket availability.[40] European consumer protection law also places a stronger emphasis on transparency in digital marketplaces, particularly with respect to upfront pricing and disclosure of fees.[41] These approaches focus on ensuring that consumers understand the full cost of a purchase before committing to it. By comparison, the United States has relied more heavily on enforcement actions after problems arise. This reactive approach may address individual cases, but it does not always establish clear rules that prevent similar issues from recurring.
These differences can be seen in how ticket prices behave for specific tours across jurisdictions. For example, recent resale listings for Ariana Grande’s 2026 Eternal Sunshine Tour show a stark contrast between markets. In London, floor tickets at the O2 Arena have been listed at approximately £500,[42] while in Los Angeles, the lowest priced (upper-level and obstructed view) seats in the Crypto.com Arena have exceeded $1,000.[43]
This disparity persists despite similar levels of demand, suggesting that resale pricing is not driven by demand alone, but also by the structure of the market in which those tickets are sold. In the United States, resale prices are largely unconstrained and may reflect what consumers are willing to pay. In markets with stronger resale controls or platform restrictions, price increases appear more limited, even for high-demand tours.
VI. Artists and Industry Incentives
Artists play a visible role in the ticketing process, but their level of control is often more complicated than it appears. While artists are usually the public face of a tour, ticket pricing and distribution are typically shaped through agreements with promoters, venues, and ticketing platforms.[44] As a result, decisions about how tickets are priced and allocated are not always made by a single actor, but instead reflect a set of negotiated agreements across the industry.[45] At the same time, artists are not entirely removed from these decisions.[46] Many artists have publicly criticized resale pricing and high fees, positioning themselves as advocates for fans who are priced out of attending live events.[47] Yet some of those public statements exist alongside industry practices that can contribute to the very outcomes being criticized. Industry discussions have increasingly focused on how to capture the “true value” of a ticket, meaning the price consumers are actually willing to pay rather than the listed face value.[48]
Pricing strategies such as dynamic pricing illustrate this tension. These strategies can reduce the gap between primary and resale prices, but they also shift higher costs directly to consumers.[49] Dynamic pricing allows ticket prices to increase based on demand, meaning that consumers purchasing tickets at the same time may pay significantly different prices for comparable seats.[50] Some artists have embraced this model. Fans purchasing tickets for major artists such as Lady Gaga reported that prices for “nosebleed” seats rose to over $600 within minutes of the sale opening.[51] While Ticketmaster denied incorporating dynamic pricing in Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter tour,[52] fans complained of inconsistent ticket prices with “seats in the same section going for different prices depending on when you bought the tickets,” likely attributable to the several presales that took place prior to the general sale of tickets.[53] These differing approaches reflect an ongoing debate within the industry over whether ticket prices should track market demand or remain more stable for consumers.
As the secondary market has matured, another layer of complexity has emerged. Historically, resellers captured the difference between face value and what consumers were willing to pay.[54] More recently, however, artists and promoters have explored ways to capture that value themselves by quietly selling a portion of concert tickets directly to secondary platforms to keep the markup for themselves.[55] This shift raises difficult questions about transparency, particularly when artists displaying public disdain toward resellers could be profiting from resale markets without their fans’ knowledge.
Importantly, the extent of an artist’s control over pricing often depends on their bargaining power. Major artists on high-grossing tours may negotiate deals that allow them to capture a significant share of ticket revenue, particularly in percentage-based agreements where higher ticket prices directly increase their earnings. By contrast, smaller or less established artists may have less influence over pricing decisions, which may instead be shaped by promoters, record labels, or other stakeholders.[56] This variability raises an unresolved question: to what extent should highly successful artists, who have the leverage to influence pricing and distribution, bear responsibility for improving ticketing practices for consumers?
VII. The Future of Ticketing
Concert ticket regulation is increasingly shaped not only by enforcement actions, but also by proposed legislative reforms. At the federal level, lawmakers have advanced proposals such as the TICKET (Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing) Act, which would require clearer upfront pricing disclosures and strengthen protections against deceptive practices in the sale of live-event tickets.[57] At the state level, jurisdictions such as California and New York have introduced bills aimed at regulating resale pricing and increasing transparency.[58] These developments reflect a growing recognition that existing legal frameworks, including Section 5 of the FTC Act, may not fully address the challenges posed by modern ticketing systems.
At the same time, recent developments in litigation suggest that regulatory pressure is already influencing industry behavior. In 2026, Live Nation reached a settlement with the Department of Justice concerning antitrust claims, agreeing to implement structural and operational changes addressing concerns related to its control over venues and ticket distribution.[59] However, enforcement efforts at the state level have continued, indicating that the broader legal and regulatory landscape remains unsettled.[60]
Looking forward, the future of concert ticketing will likely depend on how regulators, industry participants, and artists respond to sustained consumer dissatisfaction. Increased regulatory scrutiny may push ticketing platforms toward greater transparency, while artists and promoters may continue experimenting with pricing and distribution strategies. As ticketing practices continue to evolve, the question remains whether these changes will meaningfully improve access and fairness for consumers or simply shift existing problems into new forms.
[1] Ticketmaster, Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour Onsale Explained, Ticketmaster (Nov. 17, 2022), https://business.ticketmaster.com/press-release/taylor-swift-the-eras-tour-onsale-explained/; Ben Sisario, Ticketmaster Cancels Public Sale of Taylor Swift Tickets, N.Y. Times (Nov. 17, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/arts/music/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-eras-tour.html
[2] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Federal Trade Commission Announces Bipartisan Rule Banning Junk Ticket and Hotel Fees, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/federal-trade-commission-announces-bipartisan-rule-banning-junk-ticket-hotel-fees
[3] Danielle Kaye, Ticketmaster, Live Nation Face US Suit over Resale Tactics, BBC News (Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpq5nq9gyrvo
[4] Emily Stewart, Expensive Concert Tickets Are the New Normal, Bus. Insider (June 29, 2025), https://www.businessinsider.com/ticket-prices-expensive-cheap-beyonce-taylor-swift-ticketmaster-stubhub-seatgeek-2025-6
[5] Sisario, supra note 1
[6] Gil Kaufman, Taylor Swift to Release Additional Eras Tour Tickets for Verified Fans, Billboard (Dec. 12, 2022), https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/taylor-swift-release-eras-tour-tickets-verified-fans-ticketmaster-1235184975/
[7] Michael Saponara, Olivia Dean Puts Ticketmaster, AEG on Blast for Her Tour’s Ticket Resale Prices: ‘You Are Providing a Disgusting Service’, Billboard (Nov. 21, 2025), https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/olivia-dean-slams-ticketmaster-tour-ticket-resale-prices-1236119772/
[8] Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Sues Live Nation and Ticketmaster for Engaging in Illegal Ticket Resale Tactics and Deceiving Artists and Consumers about Price and Ticket Limits, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Sept. 18, 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
[9] 15 U.S.C. § 45, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
[10] Donald S. Passman, All You Need to Know About the Music Business, 395-96 (11th ed. 2023).
[11] Id.
[12] Michael A. Carrier, The Antitrust Case Against Live Nation Entertainment, 15 Harv. J. Sports & Ent. L. 1, 1, 39, 42 (2024), https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2024/05/15.1-Carrier.pdf
[13] Crypto.com Arena, About Us, Crypto.com Arena, https://www.cryptoarena.com/about-us
[14] Ticketmaster, Buy Tickets, Ticketmaster Help, https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/categories/4405878677905-Buy-Tickets
[15] Rosalind Adams, Ticketmaster Quietly Raised Other Fees After US Crackdown on Hidden Charges, The Guardian (Mar. 26, 2026), https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/26/ticketmaster-fees-hidden-charges
[16] Live Nation Ent., Inc., Current Report (Form 8-K), Ex. 99.1 (Jan. 25, 2010), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000119312510012287/dex991.htm
[17] Stewart, supra note 4
[18] Adam Hayes, Vertical Integration: Understanding Its Impact on Business Efficiency, Investopedia (last updated Apr. 7, 2026), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/verticalintegration.asp
[19] Carrier, supra note 12
[20] Id.
[21] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry, U.S. Dep’t Just. (May 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert
[22] Fed. Trade Comm’n, supra note 8
[23] 15 U.S.C. § 45, supra note 9
[24] Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Policy Statement on Deception (Oct. 14, 1983), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/410531/831014deceptionstmt.pdf
[25] Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness (Dec. 17, 1980), https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/ftc-policy-statement-unfairness
[26] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Truth in Advertising, Fed. Trade Comm’n, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising
[27] Benjamin Carney, Drip Pricing: Junk Fee Class Actions After FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, Am. Bar Ass’n (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/consumer/drip-pricing-junk-fee-class-actions-ftc-rule-unfair-deceptive-fees/
[28] Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, Civil Penalties, and Other Relief,
FTC v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08884 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/FTCvLiveNation-Ticketmaster-Complaint-filed.pdf
[29] Inst. for Pol’y Integrity, Petition for Rulemaking Concerning Drip Pricing, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Dec. 3, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/other-applications-petitions-requests/r207006_-_petition_for_rule_making_concerning_drip_pricing.pdf
[30] Latham & Watkins LLP, US and States Target Deceptive “Junk Fees” and “Drip Pricing” (Nov. 3, 2023), https://www.lw.com/admin/upload/SiteAttachments/US-and-States-Target-Deceptive-Junk-Fees-and-Drip-Pricing.pdf
[31] Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees to Take Effect May 12, 2025, Fed. Trade Comm’n (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
[32] Peter Grieve, Ticketmaster and StubHub Must Now Display Upfront Prices for Concert Tickets, Money (May 14, 2025), https://money.com/ticketmaster-stubhub-show-full-prices-ftc-rule/
[33] FTC v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., supra note 28
[34] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Event Ticket Sales: Market Characteristics and Consumer Protection Issues, GAO-18-347 (April 2018), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-347.pdf
[35] Passman, supra note 10 at 393
[36] Byard Duncan, How Is This Legal?, Reveal News (Mar. 8, 2021), https://revealnews.org/article/how-is-this-legal/
[37] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., supra note 34
[38] Ticketmaster, Resale Purchase Policy, Ticketmaster, https://legal.ticketmaster.com/resale-purchase-policy/
[39] FTC v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., supra note 28
[40] Competition & Mkts. Auth., CMA Secures Changes from Ticketmaster Following Oasis Tickets Investigation (Sept. 25, 2025), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-secures-changes-from-ticketmaster-following-oasis-tickets-investigation
[41] Eur. Comm’n, Unfair Pricing, Your Europe, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-pricing/index_en.htm
[42] StubHub, Ariana Grande London Tickets (The O2 Arena, Aug. 15, 2026), StubHub, https://www.stubhub.co.uk/ariana-grande-tickets-london-the-o2-arena-15-8-2026/event/106917205
[43] StubHub, Ariana Grande Los Angeles Tickets (Crypto.com Arena, June 13, 2026), StubHub, https://www.stubhub.com/ariana-grande-los-angeles-tickets-6-13-2026/event/159278542
[44] Passman, supra note 10
[45] Ticketmaster, How Are Ticket Prices and Fees Determined?, Ticketmaster Help, https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/9663528775313-How-are-ticket-prices-and-fees-determined#who_sets_ticket_prices?_
[46] Ayana Archie, So You’re Buying Tickets for Harry Styles’ Tour. Can Artists Control the Prices?, NPR (Jan. 28, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5686667/harry-styles-presale-tickets
[47] Mark Savage, Olivia Dean Wins Refunds for Fans After Criticising Ticketmaster, BBC News(Nov. 28, 2025),https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjwy44966w1o
[48] Passman, supra note 10 at 392
[49] Dave Brooks, Ticket Prices Are Higher Than Ever. Will Fans Keep Paying?,Billboard (Aug. 28, 2024), https://www.billboard.com/pro/concert-ticket-prices-higher-than-ever-will-fans-keep-paying/
[50] Reuters, What Is the ‘Dynamic Pricing’ That Has Angered Oasis Fans?, Reuters (Sept. 5, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-is-dynamic-pricing-that-has-angered-oasis-fans-2024-09-05/
[51] Favour Adegoke, Lady Gaga Fans Blast the Singer Over ‘Insane’ Tour Ticket Prices for ‘Mayhem Ball’, Yahoo (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lady-gaga-fans-blast-singer-001524195.html
[52] Melissa Rohman, Concert Ticket Prices Are Soaring, and Busting Gen Z’s Budgets, N.Y. Times (Mar. 5, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/business/gen-z-concert-tickets-taylor-swift-beyonce.html
[53] CBS News, Beyoncé Fans Complain of Inconsistent Ticket Prices for Cowboy Carter Tour, CBS News (Feb. 17, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/video/beyonc-fans-say-ticket-prices-keep-changing-for-cowboy-carter-tour/
[54] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., supra note 34
[55] Passman, supra note 10 at 392
[56] Id.
[57] Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act, H.R. 1402, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1402; Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act, S. 281, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/281/text
[58] James Hanley, California and New York Lawmakers Propose Caps on ‘Out-of-Control’ Ticket Resale Prices, Music Bus. Worldwide (Feb. 10, 2026), https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/california-and-new-york-lawmakers-propose-caps-on-out-of-control-ticket-resale-prices/
[59] Live Nation Ent., Live Nation Entertainment Reaches Settlement with U.S. Department of Justice, Live Nation Newsroom (Mar. 9, 2026), https://newsroom.livenation.com/statements/live-nation-entertainment-reaches-settlement-with-u-s-department-of-justice/
[60] Legal Examiner, DOJ Settlement with Live Nation Stuns States, Mistrial Requested, Legal Examiner (Mar. 13, 2026), https://www.legalexaminer.com/lestaffer/legal/doj-settlement-with-live-nation-stuns-states-mistrial-requested/
