Internal emails reveal Ticketmaster helped scalpers jack up prices, FTC says
Internal emails cited in a new FTC lawsuit allege that Live Nation–Ticketmaster actively facilitated scalpers and inflated fees, effectively helping drive ticket prices far above face value. Commenters argue that the core problem is Ticketmaster’s vertically integrated monopoly over venues, promotions, and resale, combined with artists underpricing tickets while using Ticketmaster as a scapegoat for fan anger. Proposed remedies range from stricter regulation on resale and anti-monopoly action to alternative ticketing models that tie tickets to identities, use lotteries, or cap resale at face value.
Airline-style ticketing and transferability
- Several commenters argue event tickets could work like airline seats: name-bound, ID-checked, non-transferable or only refundable at face value, which would largely kill scalping.
- Others counter that venues don’t want the friction of strict ID checks and, unlike airlines, many stakeholders (venues, promoters, platforms) actively profit from resales.
- Historical note: airline non-transferability is relatively recent; tickets used to be easily resellable before post‑9/11 ID rules.
Artist pricing, scalpers, and who’s to blame
- Strong theme: the “root cause” of scalping is artists and promoters intentionally pricing tickets below market value while still wanting market-level revenue.
- Multiple people claim artists, managers, venues, and Ticketmaster all share in high fees and secondary-market profits, with Ticketmaster acting as the public villain so artists can maintain a “we care about fans” image.
- Some push back, saying Ticketmaster’s consolidation shifted power away from artists; others argue it’s a mutually lucrative ecosystem that exploits fan passion.
Monopoly, vertical integration, and incentives
- Ticketmaster/Live Nation is described as more than a ticketing site: it owns or controls venues, promotions, and some artist management, creating a de facto monopoly over large arenas and amphitheaters.
- Venues reportedly get a cut of the “fees,” giving them direct incentives to tolerate or encourage inflated pricing and resale dynamics.
- Commenters note this structure lets Ticketmaster claim to fight bots while quietly benefiting from high-volume brokers.
User experiences and fee resentment
- Many describe high fees on both purchase and resale, with Ticketmaster taking a cut each time a ticket changes hands.
- Stories include instant “sellouts” followed by large resale inventory at higher prices, and people paying hundreds of dollars over face value or eating large losses when plans change.
- Some still report smooth technical experiences with Ticketmaster; the hatred is overwhelmingly about pricing, opacity, and perceived gouging.
Proposed fixes and policy ideas
- Legal caps: laws banning resale above face value (as in some European countries and Norway) are cited as effective in limiting scalping and fee games.
- Mechanisms: lotteries, queues, refundable-but-not-transferable tickets, and auctions or “bonding curves” that dynamically discover market prices while keeping surplus with artists/venues rather than scalpers.
- Technical ideas include on-chain/non-transferable ticket tokens, but critics note incentives are misaligned: the current ecosystem profits from speculation.
Competition, regulation, and broader capitalism debate
- Startups and independent ticketing platforms exist but are described as boxed into small, low-margin shows because Live Nation controls big venues and promoters.
- Some hope for antitrust action (FTC lawsuit, DOJ breakup talk); others are cynical that fines and class actions will be minor “slaps on the wrist.”
- A meta-thread blames concentrated market power and “end-stage capitalism,” arguing monopolies/cartels are a natural outcome when profit maximization meets weak regulation.