All-in ticket prices are now US law: StubHub pays $10M, and the TICKET Act still waits on the Senate

Since 12 May 2025, any business selling live-event tickets in the US has had to show the total price up front. On 9 April 2026 the Federal Trade Commission showed what breaking that rule costs: StubHub will pay $10 million to settle charges that it left mandatory fees out of its advertised prices in the days right after the rule took effect.

The broader ticketing bill, the TICKET Act, is still waiting. It passed the House 409-15 on 29 April 2025 and has had no Senate vote since. Here is what the law already says, what the bill would add, and what any of it means for the people who put a price on their own shows.

What does the fee rule require?

The FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 CFR Part 464) covers two industries only: live-event tickets and short-term lodging. The Commission had proposed an economy-wide rule and narrowed it in the final version, saying the record showed longstanding problems in those two industries in particular.

The core obligations are short:

• Any business that offers, displays or advertises a ticket price must clearly and conspicuously show the total price: everything the buyer must pay, including mandatory fees.
• The total must be shown more prominently than any other pricing information. Only the final payment amount may be as prominent or more so.
• Just three things may be left out of the total: government charges, shipping, and optional add-ons. Each must still be disclosed, along with the final amount, before the buyer pays.
• Misrepresenting a fee's nature, purpose, amount or refundability is a separate violation.

The FTC's FAQ adds that resale marketplaces and other third-party platforms are covered, that a fee added by default or through a pre-ticked box still counts as mandatory, and that violators can be ordered to refund consumers and pay civil penalties. What the rule doesn't do matters as much. In its own words, it does not prohibit any one type of fee or dynamic pricing, and "the discretion to set prices remains squarely with businesses". The FTC's effective-date release makes the same point: no fee type or amount is banned.

What did StubHub do?

According to the FTC, in mid-May 2025 StubHub's first two pricing screens often showed prices without mandatory fees, and the third listed the fees but not the total. The timing mattered: the rule took effect two days before the NFL released its schedule on 14 May, a peak for football ticket demand. The FTC says it had already sent StubHub a warning letter that month.

The $10 million goes to buyers of tickets for US events between 12 and 14 May 2025, in two groups: those who didn't see a total price on the first screen, and everyone else who bought in that window. Redress is due within 90 days of the order. The order also bars StubHub from misrepresenting total prices or fees, and requires the total to be shown first and most prominently. The Commission voted 2-0, and the complaint and stipulated order were filed in federal court in Manhattan.

StubHub told NBC that it has long supported all-in pricing, that the case covers a limited number of transactions over three days, and that it strongly disagrees with the FTC's view but is refunding part of those fees to address the agency's concerns. A settlement is not a court finding that StubHub broke the law.

What would the TICKET Act add?

The rule only governs how prices are shown. The House-passed TICKET Act goes further. It would write all-in pricing into statute and require an itemised breakdown of base price and fees before purchase. It would ban selling tickets the seller doesn't have, while allowing a clearly labelled service that tries to get one. It would require full refunds for events cancelled for reasons within the seller's control and, for shows postponed by more than six months, a choice of refund or replacement ticket. And it would bar ticket sellers and resellers from implying they are affiliated with an artist, venue or team, including by calling themselves "official", without a written agreement or consent. Most provisions would start 180 days after enactment, with the FTC enforcing them.

The House bill, H.R. 1402, went onto the Senate calendar on 16 September 2025. The Senate's own version, S. 281, sponsored by Eric Schmitt with Ed Markey, was reported by the Commerce Committee on 29 April 2025 and has sat on the calendar since. Neither has had a floor vote. Live Nation backed the bill and says its US venues and festivals moved to all-in pricing in 2023. With Live Nation on record in favour, the delay is hard to pin on the ticketing industry alone.

What we think

For artists who set ticket prices, all-in pricing is good for fans and a mixed blessing for them. The rule leaves fees untouched: the platform, promoter and venue keep the same cut. What changes is where the fees show up. Take a hypothetical $40 ticket carrying $12 of fees. Before, fans saw $40 and met the $52 at checkout, where the anger landed on the platform. Now the first number they see is $52, next to the artist's name. In our reading, the artist now wears the fee load in the fan's eyes without gaining any say over it.

That gives artists a reason to ask questions they could skip before. When you agree a face value, ask the promoter for the full fee stack per tier and what the all-in number will be, because that is the price your fans will judge you on. If fees push a "cheap" tier past what your audience will pay, you now find out at the on-sale, not in the comments afterwards. Whether an artist's own "tickets from $35" post counts as advertising under the rule is a question the FAQ doesn't answer directly; the safe habit is to quote the all-in price, or link straight to the seller.

The TICKET Act's most artist-relevant clause gets the least attention: the ban on sellers and resellers presenting themselves as "official" without the artist's consent. That protects an artist's name, not just fans' wallets. The House text contains no cap on resale prices, though, and no right for artists to set resale terms. The March 2025 executive order itself notes that artists receive no profit when scalpers resell tickets at huge markups. Neither the rule nor the bill touches that gap.

Finally, the StubHub case shows the rule has teeth, but only so much. Three days of violations at peak demand cost $10 million and a promise to comply, with no admission. That is a meaningful deterrent for a reseller and small next to the structural questions about who controls venues and ticketing, which the Justice Department's antitrust case is testing. Transparent prices are the floor. Who sets them, and who keeps the difference, is still the fight.

Sources

• Federal Trade Commission, StubHub Refunding $10 Million in Fees to Consumers After Deceptive Ticket Pricing (9 Apr 2026)
• Federal Trade Commission, FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees to Take Effect on May 12, 2025 (5 May 2025)
• Federal Trade Commission, Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees: Frequently Asked Questions
• Federal Register, Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (10 Jan 2025)
• GovInfo, H.R. 1402, TICKET Act, engrossed in the House
• Congress.gov, H.R.1402 and S.281
• Office of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, House passage of the TICKET Act (29 Apr 2025)
• The White House, Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market (31 Mar 2025)
• Live Nation Entertainment, Live Nation Supports U.S. House Advancing the TICKET Act (9 Apr 2025)
• NBC New York, StubHub to refund $10M after FTC says it violated fee rules (9 Apr 2026)