Ticketmaster Lawsuit Explainer: Breaking Down the FTC Case With Veteran Attorney Paul Singer

Few lawyers understand the intersection of consumer protection, state enforcement and corporate accountability as deeply as Paul Singer, chair of the state attorneys general practice at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Based in Washington, D.C., Singer leads one of the country’s most experienced teams advising companies on multistate investigations, regulatory compliance and proactive engagement with state attorneys general (AGs). Before joining Kelley Drye, Singer spent two decades inside the Texas Attorney General’s office, where he helped shape national enforcement strategies on consumer protection, data privacy and deceptive trade practices.

That includes cases like the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit last month against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. Seven state AGs joined the regulator in a civil complaint accusing the ticketing giant of colluding with ticket brokers, hiding jaw-dropping fees and ignoring flagrant rule breaking by some of Ticketmaster’s biggest earners. The suit charges they turned a blind eye to broker hijinks, let fake accounts bypass purchase limits and profited off inflated resales — all while advertising lower prices upfront.

While Singer has no official ties to the case, he’s agreed to break down the case for Billboard and explain how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state AGs are coordinating their efforts against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. He also details why “junk fees” have become a bipartisan target and what enforcement trends could reshape how ticketing platforms disclose prices and manage bots in the years ahead.

You work as chair Kelley Drye’s State AG Practice. What does that actually entail?

I generally describe a state AG practice as having three components. First, we defend businesses under investigation by state attorneys general — primarily around consumer protection issues. That can mean helping clients respond to subpoenas, negotiate settlements or litigate if a case is filed. Second, we do compliance counseling. We help companies understand different state laws and AG priorities so they can stay compliant in how they operate. And third, we help clients engage proactively with AGs — whether that’s partnering on policy initiatives or supporting consumer protection programs. So our work really spans both defense and collaboration.

Most state AG investigations are civil, right?

That’s right. Some offices do have criminal authority, including for consumer protection, but the larger cases — the ones that make headlines — are civil in nature. One point of clarification: AGs don’t represent individual citizens. They bring actions in the public interest on behalf of the state. Even if the outcome benefits consumers, it’s technically the state acting to protect its residents collectively.

There’s a major FTC case against Ticketmaster and Live Nation, with several states joining in. Why are states teaming up with the FTC here?

The FTC routinely partners with state AGs, especially when states are already active in an issue area. It’s not unusual to see joint actions like this. In cases alleging violations of federal law — like the BOTS Act, which targets automated ticket-buying software — states often must notify the FTC before filing. That opens the door for the FTC to join in. There’s also a practical reason: the FTC’s ability to obtain monetary relief has been narrowed by the courts, while states still have that authority. Working together allows them to pool resources and pursue both injunctive and monetary remedies that the FTC couldn’t get on its own.

If Ticketmaster were to settle, would it have to reach deals with every state and the FTC separately?

Each state and the FTC are independent sovereigns — any one of them could technically settle on its own. But given that they filed jointly, any resolution is likely to include everyone. It’s the only way to fully close out a case of this scale.

You mentioned the BOTS Act. The case seems to go beyond literal bots — it’s more about Ticketmaster’s enforcement of its own terms of service.

That’s a fair reading. When the BOTS Act passed, automated scripts were the main way people were circumventing ticket limits. But the industry evolved — now there are networks of people creating fake accounts or coordinating mass purchases manually. The complaint essentially argues that Ticketmaster turned a blind eye to this activity because it benefited from it financially. Even if the company had policies against brokers using bots, the allegation is that they didn’t enforce those rules, which can be deceptive if you’re telling the public you have safeguards in place. It’s a common enforcement theory: if a company advertises a policy but knowingly allows violations, that’s potentially misleading.

The case also involves deceptive fees. What’s at stake there?

Price transparency has become a major enforcement priority for both the FTC and states. The core idea is simple — when you quote a price, consumers should clearly understand what they’re going to pay. We’ve seen similar cases in other industries, especially hotels with undisclosed “resort fees.” In ticketing, if I see a $50 ticket online but it jumps to $75 at checkout, that’s a problem. Regulators want those mandatory fees shown upfront, not buried later in the process. It also matters for comparison shopping. If fans can’t tell the real total price until the final step, they can’t make informed choices between seats or sellers.

Ticketmaster says it’s already started showing all-in pricing. Does that satisfy regulators?

It’s a step in the right direction, but transparency goes deeper than just showing a total. Under new rules like Massachusetts’ price transparency regulations, companies must break down what each fee is for and ensure those fees are reasonably related to the service they claim to cover. You can’t just label a $20 “venue fee” if that money isn’t actually going to venue costs. The disclosure has to be accurate and meaningful.

Could regulators ever push Ticketmaster to divest its resale business?

That would move beyond consumer protection into antitrust territory — challenging the company’s market structure and prior acquisitions. It’s unlikely as part of this case, which focuses on deceptive and unfair practices. Remedies here will likely be policy and compliance-driven — mandating enforcement procedures, clear disclosures, and stronger anti-bot controls.

Billboard‘s Live Music Summit will be held in Los Angeles on Nov. 3. For tickets and more information, visit https://www.billboardlivemusicsummit.com/2025/home-launch.