FTC v. Ticketmaster survives dismissal: the BOTS Act and fee claims head to discovery

A federal judge has refused to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's consumer-protection case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. In an order dated 28 September 2026, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the Central District of California denied the companies' motion "as to each claim". The FTC posted the order on 30 September.

Be precise about what this is. A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint would state a legal claim if everything in it were true. The judge says so in plain words at the top of the order: the court "is not deciding at this stage" whether the accusations are true, only whether the case can continue. Nobody has been found liable. The allegations below are still allegations, and the companies deny them.

What is the case about?

The FTC and seven states (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia) sued in September 2025. As the order summarises the complaint, they allege three things:

• Drip pricing. Ticketmaster showed a list price through most of the purchase and added mandatory fees at checkout. The complaint says the fees raised the total by up to 44%, and quotes an internal reference to a "bait and switch approach".
• Ticket limits that weren't enforced. Ticketmaster told fans and artists that per-event limits were strict, but it allegedly let brokers use hundreds or thousands of accounts to get round them. The complaint quotes a senior executive saying the companies "turn a blind eye as a matter of policy".
• BOTS Act violations. Ticketmaster allegedly resold those broker-acquired tickets on its own resale marketplace and collected fees at each step. The complaint puts resale fees at $3.7 billion from 2019 through 2024.

What did the judge decide?

The motion failed on every point, and three rulings matter beyond this case.

"Circumvent" means what it says. The BOTS Act makes it unlawful to circumvent a security measure or other technological control that a ticket issuer uses to enforce posted purchase limits. It also bans selling a ticket obtained that way if the seller could control the conduct, or knew or should have known about it. Live Nation argued that "circumvent" means technical circumvention, as defined in the copyright law known as the DMCA. The court said Congress didn't adopt that definition, so the plain meaning applies: evading or avoiding a restriction. On the complaint's account, brokers who run masses of accounts under fictitious names to get past the limit dropdown and Ticketmaster's TicketCounter screening are circumventing. The judge even counted the purchase-quantity dropdown as a technological measure.

A platform can "sell" a resale ticket. Ticketmaster said it only provides a marketplace and never owns the tickets resold on it. The court disagreed. Ticketmaster voids the original ticket, issues a new one to the buyer and takes fees, so on these allegations it sells. In the court's words, the BOTS Act "does not preclude platforms from facing liability".

"+Fees" isn't enough. The court called the label "vague and ambiguous", because it tells buyers fees exist but not how large they are. It also noted that deception can happen at first contact even if the full price appears before payment. Live Nation's switch to all-in pricing didn't end the pricing claims. The court said the complaint only acknowledges an announced intention to change and alleges that the violations hadn't stopped.

The court also let the states' consumer-law claims stand, ruled that the BOTS Act's three-year limit doesn't bar the FTC's requests for an injunction and civil penalties, and allowed the states to join the FTC's suit rather than file their own.

What does Live Nation say?

Live Nation and Ticketmaster filed a 37-page answer on 13 October, according to Music Business Worldwide. They call the suit "misguided" and argue that the BOTS Act was written to protect platforms from scalpers. Their main argument is about incentives. On the FTC's reading, a platform with no limits would have nothing to circumvent, while every new safeguard adds legal exposure. The answer warns of "a severe chilling effect on abuse prevention", TicketNews reports. The companies say they have spent more than $1 billion on anti-bot defences since 2010 and blocked nearly 260 million automated attempts a day in 2025. Those are their own figures, and nobody has tested them yet.

Among their defences, they argue that the FTC's reading of the Act is unconstitutionally vague and gave no fair notice. TicketNews reports that a scheduling conference is set for 29 October. The plaintiffs have proposed a jury trial on 24 April 2028 and the defendants a bench trial on 2 October 2028. The court hasn't adopted either date.

How is this different from the DOJ case?

The two cases are easy to confuse, but they are separate. The Justice Department's case is an antitrust suit in the Southern District of New York, filed in May 2024 under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It asks whether Live Nation illegally holds monopoly power, and the answer decides who owns what: Ticketmaster, the amphitheatres, the booking contracts. We cover the jury verdict, the DOJ settlement and the states' push for a breakup separately.

The FTC case is a consumer-protection case in California, in front of a different judge. It doesn't ask whether Ticketmaster is too big. It asks whether Ticketmaster told the truth about prices and limits and profited from tickets it allegedly knew were bought illegally. The FTC is seeking an injunction, monetary relief and civil penalties, not a breakup. One case could end in a settlement and the other in a trial, and neither result decides the other.

What we think

For artists, the most important line in the order isn't about bots. It's the finding that, on the complaint's account, ticket limits are material to artists, who "negotiate and rely on" them so that ordinary fans get a fair chance at face value. Until now a ticket limit was a setting the artist asked for and the platform applied when it suited. If the FTC's theory holds through trial, a limit becomes a promise with legal force against the platform that sells the tickets, and artists gain leverage they haven't had before.

Live Nation's chilling-effect argument deserves a fair hearing, but it describes a case the FTC didn't bring. The Act's resale ban doesn't reach a platform just because it has defences that someone beat. It reaches a seller that could control the circumvention, or knew or should have known about it, and then sold the tickets anyway. A platform that runs no limits at all doesn't escape either, because artists insist on limits and the deception claim covers promising limits you don't enforce. The incentive this ruling creates is narrower than Live Nation suggests: don't run a resale market fed by brokers you know are breaking your own rules.

That points to the real conflict, which discovery will test. One company runs the primary sale that sets the limit and the resale market that profits when the limit fails. According to TicketNews, Ticketmaster adopted all-in pricing in May 2025, and in October 2025, after the suit was filed, it announced plans to limit professional resellers to one verified account. Changes like these tend to come under regulatory pressure, not before it.

There are two practical points for artists and managers. First, ask for enforcement reporting in your ticketing terms: how many accounts bought past the limit for your on-sale, and what happened to those tickets. Second, don't wait for this case. On either side's proposed date, trial is in 2028, and this year's on-sales won't wait for it.

Sources

• US District Court, C.D. Cal., Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, FTC et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, No. 2:25-cv-08884 (28 Sep 2026; copy hosted by TicketNews)
• Federal Trade Commission, Ticketmaster case page
• Federal Trade Commission, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (timeline item) (30 Sep 2026)
• Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S. Code § 45c (BOTS Act)
• TicketNews, Live Nation Claims FTC Lawsuit Could Discourage Anti-Bot Protections (Oct 2026)
• Music Business Worldwide, Live Nation calls FTC's BOTS Act lawsuit 'misguided' (15 Oct 2026)
• US Department of Justice, Competitive Impact Statement, US v. Live Nation Entertainment (S.D.N.Y., 29 Jun 2026)
• US Department of Justice, US and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster (case page)