In recent weeks, there has been a lot of news coverage about a lawsuit being brought against Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster is a major ticket sales and distribution company, selling tickets for various live entertainment events. A number of consumers have filed a lawsuit against Ticketmaster alleging a number of unfair practices. This has sparked a lot of interest and questions as to why exactly people are suing Ticketmaster. In this article, we’ll break down the key details about the lawsuit and explain the main allegations being made against Ticketmaster.
Background on Ticketmaster
Ticketmaster is one of the largest ticket sales and distribution companies in the world. It sells tickets for various live entertainment events including concerts, sporting events, theater shows, and more. Ticketmaster dominates much of the primary ticket sales market and also runs a number of major resale ticket exchanges including Vivid Seats and the Ticket Exchange resale site.
The company sells tickets both through its own primary ticket sales websites and by contracting with various entertainment venues and organizers as their official primary ticket provider. In this way, Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements that make it the only place to get first-run tickets for many major concerts, shows, and sporting events.
This dominant market position has long drawn complaints from consumers about high fees and a lack of alternatives for purchasing tickets. While Ticketmaster has claimed its fees are justified to cover the costs of operating its platform, many feel these fees are excessive and exploitative of Ticketmaster’s position as an exclusive ticket provider.
Details of the Lawsuit
In July 2022, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against Ticketmaster on behalf of consumers who had purchased tickets through Ticketmaster’s platform.
The lawsuit brings a number of allegations against Ticketmaster’s practices, including:
– Excessive and undisclosed fees – The lawsuit alleges Ticketmaster charges excessive order processing fees, delivery fees, and other service fees on all ticket purchases that are not properly disclosed to customers upfront.
– Misleading “all-in” pricing – Ticketmaster promotes certain tickets as “all-in” pricing but excludes its own fees from the advertised ticket price. This obscures the full costs.
– Abuse of market position – The lawsuit alleges Ticketmaster abuses its dominant position in ticket sales to charge excessive fees and limit consumer choice.
– Antitrust violations – By contracting exclusive deals with venues and leagues, Ticketmaster allegedly engages in anticompetitive behavior violating antitrust laws.
– Fraudulent representations – Ticketmaster’s statements around its fees being justified and its pricing being clear are alleged to be false and fraudulent.
The lawsuit aims to seek compensation for Ticketmaster customers who have been charged these fees dating back to the last ten years. It alleges violations of consumer protection laws as well as antitrust laws in Ticketmaster’s actions.
The lead plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are two Ticketmaster customers who were charged fees they allege were undisclosed at the time they purchased tickets through Ticketmaster. They are seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action on behalf of all similarly affected US Ticketmaster customers, which could potentially include millions of people.
Ticketmaster’s Response
Ticketmaster has denied the allegations raised in the lawsuit, defending its fees as being fully disclosed and justified. A Ticketmaster spokesperson gave the following statement:
“Ticketmaster’s practices and fees are clearly disclosed to customers from the beginning stages of ticket purchase. Our processing fees are in line with or often less than other major ticketing sites. We will vigorously defend ourselves against these baseless claims.”
Ticketmaster argues that it provides complete transparency around its fees to customers and only charges fees that are reasonable to cover the costs of its service and operations. It denies allegations of monopolistic behavior, arguing that it competes fairly in the ticketing marketplace.
The company is expected to mount a substantial legal defense. Given Ticketmaster’s resources and experience fighting lawsuits in the past, it will likely try to have the class action lawsuit dismissed through procedural motions before the case reaches trial.
Why Are Customers So Frustrated?
This pending lawsuit taps into years of built-up resentment amongst many customers over Ticketmaster’s fees and lack of alternatives. A few key grievances commonly expressed by customers include:
Fees are unavoidable – For many major concerts or events. Ticketmaster is the only authorized place to purchase first-run tickets. This makes their fees practically unavoidable to customers who want guaranteed entry.
Lack of transparency – Customers complain fees are often revealed late in the purchasing process after ticket selection. This makes comparison shopping difficult.
No added value – Customer perceive Ticketmaster’s ubiquitous fees as providing no extra service or value compared to more basic ticketing platforms.
Captive market – With exclusive deals locking up major venues and artists, customers feel exploited as a captive market.
Resellers – Ticketmaster owning its own resellers and resale exchanges strikes many as a clear conflict of interest.
While Ticketmaster maintains its innocence and the legality of its practices, it’s clear that consumer frustration has been building for years over the company’s power and fees. This pending lawsuit channels much of that resentment.
Could This Lawsuit Succeed?
It remains to be seen whether the lawsuit will gain traction or fizzle out. Lawsuits of this nature are always uncertain.
For a lawsuit like this to progress, first the court needs to certify it as a class action, deciding the affected group is large and uniform enough for a class action. If certified as a class action, Ticketmaster would likely try to settle to avoid risking trial.
If settlements talks fail, the case would eventually head to trial where a jury would decide if Ticketmaster’s policies violate consumer protection or antitrust laws.
For the lawsuit plaintiffs to win on these claims, they would need to convince a jury of a few key arguments with sufficient evidence:
– Ticketmaster intentionally hides the full costs of fees from customers during ticket selection
– The level of fees charged by Ticketmaster exceeds what is reasonably necessary to operate its services
– Customers are locked in and have no choice but to pay Ticketmaster’s fees
– Ticketmaster uses exclusive deals to stifle competition in an illegal manner
Ticketmaster will argue its fees are fully disclosed and reasonable, customers have multiple sales channels to choose from, and its exclusive contracts are standard industry practice.
The facts may support elements of both sides of the argument. It will come down to how compelling the evidence and arguments are on each side. Both parties face risks should it reach trial.
What Could Change with a Ticketmaster Loss?
If Ticketmaster loses at trial, the impact could be substantial. In addition to having to pay out significant sums in settlements or damages, it could be forced to change its fee structures and business practices.
Potential outcomes include:
– Lowering or capping its fees – To avoid further lawsuits, Ticketmaster may need to reduce its fee levels and put caps in place. This could slash a major revenue stream.
– Changing fee disclosures – Ticketmaster would likely need to be more upfront about the full costs and fees at the initial ticket search stage rather than revealing fees later in checkout.
– unwinding exclusive agreements – If found to be anticompetitive, Ticketmaster may need to open more of its exclusive ticketing deals to allow competitors in the door.
– Pushing into new markets – Losing its ability to lean on fees and exclusivity could force Ticketmaster to innovate and expand into new ticketing products and services to drive revenues.
– Downsizing – With lower revenues and profits, Ticketmaster may need to cut overhead costs by downsizing offices, staff, marketing budgets, technology investments, and other operating expenses.
Major changes would reverberate through the ticketing industry. Smaller competitors could benefit from a weakened Ticketmaster. Customers might see more choice between ticketing platforms and lower fees across the board.
What if Ticketmaster Prevails?
A Ticketmaster victory would maintain the status quo. If the courts ultimately don’t find its practices illegal, Ticketmaster can continue operating its ticketing empire in a similar fashion.
Consumers would remain frustrated by the fees but have little recourse. An outpouring of public criticism of Ticketmaster could continue. This bad PR may force Ticketmaster to make token concessions to improve its brand image, such as slightly reduced fees or new loyalty programs. But its core business model would remain intact.
Only additional lawsuits or potential regulatory changes would remain as avenues to force more meaningful changes at Ticketmaster. But the company would gain confidence from prevailing that its positioning and practices are solid.
Could Ticketing Be Reformed?
Stepping back, many believe the ticketing industry is fundamentally broken and in need of reform. This lawsuit could be one catalyst for that change.
Even if this specific consumer lawsuit fails, it highlights how many consumers are fed up with the status quo. Other ideas have been raised by consumer advocates to reform the industry, including:
– Capping ticketing fees – Federal or state laws could set limits on fees to protect consumers.
– Breaking up Ticketmaster – Forcing the company to divest assets to create more competition.
– Greater fee transparency – Laws requiring upfront all-in pricing could avoid bait-and-switch tactics.
– More robust consumer choice – Making exclusive ticketing contracts illegal could open up more competition.
– Non-profit or public ticketing – Some advocate government run or non-profit ticketing as an alternative model.
– Artist/venue control – Allowing artists and shows to self-distribute primary tickets could cut out third-party fees.
Industry reform would likely require government intervention through legislatures and regulators. This consumer lawsuit alone won’t dictate systemic changes. But the groundswell of grievances it represents could build public pressure for lawmakers to eventually address perceived exploitation and unfairness in the ticketing business.
Conclusion
This pending lawsuit against Ticketmaster taps into long-simmering consumer frustrations over hidden fees, unavoidable charges, and lack of ticketing choices. Whether the specific claims prevail in court remains uncertain. Ticketmaster has ample resources for a formidable defense.
But the lawsuit represents a flashpoint of anger many feel towards the company and the broader ticketing industry. Even if this case stalls, calls for reform are likely to continue as consumers demand more transparent, affordable, and equitable access to live event tickets. Ticking titans like Ticketmaster can expect increased scrutiny of their dominant position and business practices in the years ahead.