Ticketmaster is facing a lawsuit over allegations that it has abused its power as the dominant ticket sales and distribution company in the live events industry. The lawsuit centers around Ticketmaster’s practices regarding service fees, restrictions placed on venues, and exclusive contracts that allegedly stifle competition.
What are the key allegations against Ticketmaster?
There are three main allegations against Ticketmaster in the lawsuit:
- Ticketmaster abuses its market position to charge exorbitant service fees to customers. Customers have no choice but to pay the high fees if they want to buy tickets to events.
- Ticketmaster imposes restrictions on concert and event venues that want to use its ticketing services. This makes it difficult for venues to use other ticket companies.
- Ticketmaster enters into exclusive agreements with venues that only allow Ticketmaster to sell their tickets. This blocks competitors from the primary ticket market.
Essentially, the lawsuit argues that Ticketmaster faces little competition and takes advantage of its dominant position to charge very high fees and limit consumer choice through exclusivity deals.
Who filed the Ticketmaster lawsuit?
The Ticketmaster lawsuit was initially filed in October 2022 by two individuals – Matthew McMillan and Marissa Yang. However, it has now been combined with another lawsuit and turned into a class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiffs in the new consolidated lawsuit are Shon Boulden and Seth Horowitz. They filed the class action complaint on behalf of all Ticketmaster customers who paid fees since 2011.
What evidence does the lawsuit cite against Ticketmaster?
The lawsuit cites several pieces of evidence to back up its allegations against Ticketmaster’s anti-competitive practices:
- Ticketmaster service fees that have consistently increased over time and now average over 25% of ticket prices
- Venue contracts with Ticketmaster that include requirements to only use Ticketmaster for primary ticket sales
- Ticketmaster’s surcharges when using competitors like Eventbrite for ticket sales
- Ticketmaster’s ownership of major venues like the Los Angeles Forum and restrictions placed on their ticketing
- Comments from event organizers and venues complaining about Ticketmaster’s control over the industry
The lawsuit argues this demonstrates Ticketmaster’s monopoly power and the harm caused to consumers from lack of competition in ticket sales.
What time period does the Ticketmaster lawsuit cover?
The class action Ticketmaster lawsuit covers purchases made since 2011. This encompasses a 10-year period of Ticketmaster’s service fees, exclusivity contracts, and alleged anti-competitive actions.
Some of the key developments cited in the lawsuit period include:
- 2010 – Live Nation and Ticketmaster merge, further consolidating the industry
- 2011 – Ticketmaster begins enforcing minimum price requirements
- 2017 – Ticketmaster service fees now averaging over 25% of ticket prices
- 2022 – Multiple venue contracts restricting ticketing options revealed
So the lawsuit is looking at over a decade of Ticketmaster’s practices and dominance of primary ticket sales.
What are the claims against Ticketmaster in the lawsuit?
The class action lawsuit makes two main legal claims against Ticketmaster:
- Violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act – This prohibits companies from monopolizing markets anti-competitively. The lawsuit argues Ticketmaster violates this law through exclusivity agreements and other actions.
- Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law – This prohibits unfair business practices. The lawsuit claims Ticketmaster engages in these through exploitative fees and restricting consumer choice.
In essence, the lawsuit alleges Ticketmaster is illegally abusing its market power and harming consumers.
What examples does the lawsuit use of Ticketmaster’s anti-competitive practices?
The class action lawsuit contains many examples arguing Ticketmaster engages in illegal anti-competitive actions. Some key examples include:
- Ticketmaster charging a 49% service fee for a BTS concert while fees for non-Ticketmaster events were under 20%
- Contract for Los Angeles Forum requiring they only use Ticketmaster, with penalties for contracting other providers
- Ticketmaster requiring venues use its ticket resale platform, restricting options
- Surcharges levied on tickets sold through non-Ticketmaster ticketing providers
- Exclusive ticketing deals with major venues like Madison Square Garden
These examples and more are cited as evidence of Ticketmaster’s monopoly power and actions to block competitors.
What are the aims and desired outcomes of the Ticketmaster lawsuit?
The lawsuit aims to stop Ticketmaster’s alleged anti-competitive practices. The main desired outcomes stated in the complaint are:
- Prohibit Ticketmaster from entering into further exclusive ticketing agreements with venues
- Block Ticketmaster from retaliating against venues that use other ticket companies
- Require Ticketmaster to pay damages to all customers who paid excess fees since 2011
- Prevent Ticketmaster from conditioning use of its platforms on clients accepting unreasonable terms
Essentially, the lawsuit wants to open up the ticket market to more competition and recover costs for consumers from Ticketmaster’s very high fees.
What legal actions could result from the Ticketmaster lawsuit?
Some potential legal actions if the lawsuit succeeds include:
- A court order banning Ticketmaster’s exclusive venue contracts and other anti-competitive actions
- Fines and penalties against Ticketmaster for antitrust violations
- Ticketmaster being forced to pay hundreds of millions in damages to plaintiffs
- Further investigations into Ticketmaster’s practices by regulators
- Ticketmaster being forced to split apart elements of its business to promote competition
However, Ticketmaster would have opportunities to appeal any rulings against it.
How has Ticketmaster responded to the lawsuit allegations?
Ticketmaster has denied the allegations in the lawsuit. Some key parts of its response so far include:
- Ticket fees are not exploitative but reflect the value provided by its platform and services
- Exclusive contracts maximize live event revenues and fan experiences
- Artists and venues choose Ticktmaster for distribution, it does not block competitors
- The ticketing market has thriving competition, Ticketmaster does not have a monopoly
Ticketmaster argues the lawsuit is without merit and mischaracterizes legal competition practices.
Year | Average Ticketmaster Fee % |
---|---|
2011 | 25% |
2017 | 27% |
2022 | 32% |
This table shows how Ticketmaster’s average fees as a percentage of ticket prices have steadily increased over the period covered by the lawsuit, from 25% in 2011 to 32% in 2022.
Could the lawsuit end Ticketmaster’s business model?
It is unlikely the lawsuit will completely upend Ticketmaster’s business model. However, it could impact certain practices. Potential outcomes include:
- Ending all exclusive venue contracts – Allow more ticketing competition
- Curbing exploitative fee setting practices – Regulate fees more
- Separating Ticketmaster from Live Nation – Reduce market power
- Improving transparency around fees – Help consumers make choices
More modest reforms seem plausible. Wholesale changes are less likely given Ticketmaster’s strong position in the live events industry.
Could Ticketmaster be forced to pay large damages?
Yes, Ticketmaster could potentially face very large damages payouts if the lawsuit succeeds. Some key considerations:
- Billions in fees collected from Ticketmaster during 2011-2022 period
- Tens of millions of ticket purchases covered by the class action
- Damages could be 10-20% of fees paid by each customer
- Potential for further antitrust penalties imposed by courts
In total, damages could well exceed $1 billion depending on the specific court rulings.
How long could the Ticketmaster lawsuit take to resolve?
Major class action lawsuits like this typically take 2-5 years to reach final resolution in the courts. The key stages include:
- Evidence gathering can take 12+ months after initial filing
- Motions to dismiss and early rulings often take 6-12 months
- Further discovery and additional motions can require another 1-2 years
- Settlement talks often take many months
- Trial and appeals potentially add years more
So a final Ticketmaster verdict likely won’t happen until at least late 2024 at the very earliest.
Could Ticketmaster settle the lawsuit?
Yes, there is a good chance Ticketmaster will seek to settle the lawsuit at some point. Reasons why include:
- Avoids unpredictability of lengthy trial process
- Limits potentially massive court damages
- Allows negotiated changes to business practices
- Minimizes public scrutiny of its monopoly position
- Provides closure for investors worried about legal risks
Lawsuits of this scale usually reach a settlement before final verdicts. This saves costs and limits risks for the defendant company.
What are the broader impacts of the Ticketmaster lawsuit?
Some potential broader impacts of the lawsuit include:
- Increased public awareness ofTicketmaster’s power and fees
- Government regulators prompted to further scrutinize industry competition
- Venues reconsidering exclusive Ticketmaster contracts when possible
- Pressure on Ticketmaster to moderate some exploitative practices preemptively
- Other ticketing companies trying to capitalize by promoting competitive alternatives
Even without a final verdict, the lawsuit draws attention to Ticketmaster’s practices and industry control.
Could the lawsuit inspire more competition in ticketing?
Yes, the lawsuit could potentially stimulate more competition in primary ticketing services. However, Ticketmaster’s entrenched position creates barriers.
More competition could emerge through:
- New ticketing startups attracting investment to take on Ticketmaster
- Venues being emboldened to use multiple ticket providers
- Existing players like Eventbrite expanding from niche markets
- Bands and artists selling more tickets directly without Ticketmaster
But competitors still face huge challenges overcoming Ticketmaster’s scale and dominance. Meaningful change may require structural remedies beyond just a legal ruling.
Conclusion
The Ticketmaster lawsuit alleges the company illegally monopolizes the ticket sales market, harming consumers through high fees and restrictive contracts. While Ticketmaster defends its practices as legitimate competition, the lawsuit could force changes to some of its more anti-competitive actions. Settlement seems more likely than a final verdict. In any case, the lawsuit draws major attention to Ticketmaster’s power and control over live event ticketing.