Two tickets, listed at $245 apiece. Subtotal: $490. Total at checkout: $662.21.
That’s the example the Federal Trade Commission put in its complaint against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. According to the complaint, $60.96 of the difference was tax and $111.04 was mandatory fees: “a $45.20 service fee on each ticket, a $6.00 facility charge on each ticket, and an order processing fee of $8.85.” Those three fees actually add up to $111.25, which is also what’s left of the $662.21 after the tickets and the tax. The fees are hard to add up even for the people suing over them. The only warning on the way there, the FTC says, was two words in small print next to the list price: “+ Fees”.
On September 28, 2026, a federal judge in Los Angeles refused to throw the case out. And her answer to the “+Fees” defense is one sentence long:
“+Fees” is vague and ambiguous.
Minnesota doesn’t need a federal judge to say that. The legislature banned the move outright in 2024, and the law has applied to every ticket sold here since January 1, 2025.
What did the court actually decide?
The case is FTC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08884-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.). The FTC and seven states (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia) filed it on September 18, 2025. Minnesota isn’t a plaintiff. The complaint makes three charges: Ticketmaster advertised prices it didn’t charge, it advertised ticket limits it didn’t enforce, and it resold tickets brokers got by blowing through those limits, in violation of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act.
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong denied the motion to dismiss on every claim. Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 127.
Now, what this ruling does and does NOT mean. The judge said it herself, in plain English, before she got to any law:
This Court is not deciding at this stage whether the FTC’s and the states’ accusations are true.
A motion to dismiss asks one question: if every fact in the complaint were true, would it add up to a violation? The court said yes. Nobody has proved anything. Live Nation and Ticketmaster filed their answer on October 13, 2026, calling the suit “misguided” and stating that “Ticketmaster now employs all-in pricing consistent with the Commission’s rules”. ECF No. 135, at 2, 5. The court has set a scheduling conference for October 29. The fight over what actually happened hasn’t started.
What the order does decide is which legal arguments are dead on arrival. Several are.
Showing the total at checkout doesn’t cure it. The defense pointed out that the full price showed up before anyone paid. The court said that isn’t enough, quoting a 1975 Ninth Circuit case: “The Federal Trade Act is violated if it induces the first contact through deception, even if the buyer later becomes fully informed before entering the contract.” Order at 14. The deception is the low number that got you to click.
A plus sign isn’t a disclosure. That’s where “+Fees” died. The court went on: “Even if it puts consumers on notice that fees will be included on every ticket, it does not put them on notice of the fee amount, which can be significant.” Order at 15. The court read the complaint as alleging that fees raised the total “up to 44%”, Order at 14, and the court wasn’t impressed by the idea that a plus sign covers that: “a reasonable consumer would not associate “+Fees” as a 44% increase in cost.“ Order at 15 n.3.
One more passage didn’t knock out an argument so much as turn it around.
Their explanation for waiting cut against them. This is the part I’d frame. The companies explained that they didn’t switch to all-in pricing sooner because, as the court summarized it, “if they implemented all-in pricing while their competitors did not, this would shift sales to their competitors as consumers went to the platforms where the advertised upfront price was lower.” The court’s response: “Live Nation and Ticketmaster basically admit this.” Order at 15.
Think about that argument for a second. The low sticker price worked. It worked so well that showing the real price would have cost them customers. That isn’t a defense to a deception claim. It’s a description of one.
What’s drip pricing, and why does it work?
The FTC put it in one line when it adopted its fee rule: “lure in consumers with a low price, then hit them with a higher price after they have invested in the transaction”. 90 Fed. Reg. 2066, 2067 (Jan. 10, 2025). That’s drip pricing. The fees drip in as you go.
It works because by the time the real number shows up, you’ve picked your seats, there’s a countdown clock on the screen, and starting over means losing the seats. The complaint describes exactly that clock on the checkout page. Compl. ¶ 43. The fee isn’t a surprise to the people who designed it. The complaint quotes Ticketmaster’s own president telling colleagues in 2022 that “the sticker shock at the end is the problem.” Order at 4. That’s an allegation, but it’s a memorable one.
The bots ruling matters more than the headlines suggest
The BOTS Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45c(a)(1), makes it unlawful “to circumvent a security measure, access control system, or other technological control or measure on an Internet website or online service that is used by the ticket issuer to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits”. It also bars selling a ticket obtained that way if the seller “participated directly in or had the ability to control” the circumvention or “knew or should have known” about it.
Live Nation’s position was that the statute protects platforms from scalpers and can’t be turned against the platform. The court rejected that:
The BOTS Act does not preclude platforms from facing liability, and the Court will not read it as doing so.
Order at 21. The rest of the order gives that sentence teeth.
The ticket-quantity drop-down menu counts as “a technological measure within the BOTS Act.” Order at 19 n.5. Circumvention doesn’t require hacking. The defense wanted the narrow, decrypt-and-bypass definition from copyright law, and the court said Congress didn’t write that into this statute, so “the BOTS Act is not limited to technological circumvention.” Order at 20. A broker who “routinely create[s] hundreds or thousands of Ticketmaster accounts, often using fictitious names, email addresses, and other required information” has, on these allegations, circumvented. Order at 21. And Ticketmaster can “sell” a resale ticket without owning it, because the plain meaning of “sell” doesn’t require possession. Order at 22–23. Even if it did, the court said, Ticketmaster voids the original ticket, reissues a new one, and collects fees on the deal, which is more than just running a platform. Order at 23.
Again: pleading stage. But the defense’s legal theory, that a platform is categorically outside the statute, didn’t survive.
Minnesota got there first
Minnesota’s ticket law is Minn. Stat. § 325F.676, enacted as 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 94. The governor signed it May 7, 2024. By its terms it is “effective January 1, 2025, and applies to tickets sold on or after that date.”
The FTC’s fee rule, 16 C.F.R. part 464, wasn’t published until January 10, 2025, and didn’t take effect until May 12, 2025. So Minnesota had its rule on the books eight months before the federal one was finished, and in force more than four months before the federal one kicked in.
And Minnesota’s version is tougher. Here’s the core of it, subdivision 2(a):
An operator, ticket reseller, or online ticket marketplace must, at all times during the ticket listing and purchasing process, disclose in an easily readable and conspicuous manner and in dollars:
(1) the total cost of the ticket, inclusive of all fees and surcharges that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket;
(2) the portion of the ticket price that represents a service charge; and
(3) any other fee or surcharge charged to the purchaser.
“At all times.” Not just at checkout. Not behind a drop-down caret. From the first listing on.
Subdivision 2(b) then shuts the drip off at the source:
The price of a ticket must not increase with respect to a particular person after the ticket is first displayed to the person, excluding reasonable fees for the delivery of nonelectronic tickets based on the delivery method selected by the purchaser and any additional purchases made by the purchaser, which must be disclosed prior to accepting payment.
The same paragraph says the fee breakdown “must not be presented more prominently or in the same or larger size than the total price.” The total is the headline. The fees are the fine print, which is exactly backwards from the screen the FTC describes.
Side by side:
| Minn. Stat. § 325F.676 | 16 C.F.R. part 464 | |
|---|---|---|
| In force | January 1, 2025 | May 12, 2025 |
| When the total must appear | “at all times during the ticket listing and purchasing process” (subd. 2(a)) | In “any offer, display, or advertisement that represents any price” (§ 464.2(b)) |
| Service charge broken out | Yes, in dollars (subd. 2(a)(2)) | Excluded fees disclosed before the consumer consents to pay (§ 464.2(c)) |
| Price creep after first display | Banned, except disclosed nonelectronic delivery fees and add-ons (subd. 2(b)) | No equivalent sentence |
| Who enforces | Commissioner of commerce (subd. 5) | The FTC |
The federal rule doesn’t displace Minnesota’s. Section 464.4(b) says a state law isn’t inconsistent with it “if the protection such statute, regulation, order, or interpretation affords any consumer is greater”. I’ve walked through how that plays out for Minnesota’s general junk fee law, and the same logic covers tickets.
Minnesota has its own bots-and-brokers rules, too
Subdivision 3 of § 325F.676 reads like someone had the FTC’s complaint in front of them. A person must not “circumvent any portion of the process for purchasing a ticket on the Internet or for admission to a place of entertainment, including but not limited to security or identity validation measures or an access control system”, and must not “disguise the identity of a purchaser for the purpose of purchasing a number of tickets for admission to a place of entertainment that exceeds the maximum number of tickets allowed for purchase by a person.” Subd. 3(c).
That second clause is the fake-account scheme, named in a statute. And subdivision 3(d) bars selling a ticket obtained that way if the seller “participated in or had the ability to control” the conduct or “knew that the ticket was acquired in violation”. One difference worth noticing: the federal statute adds “should have known”. Minnesota’s knowledge prong, on its face, requires actual knowledge.
The statute also kills speculative ticketing, selling seats you don’t have. A reseller or marketplace can’t advertise or sell a ticket before it’s available to the public “without first obtaining permission from the place of entertainment and having actual or constructive possession of the ticket,” subd. 3(a)(5), and no operator, marketplace, or reseller may sell a ticket unless it has possession or constructive possession or “a written contract with the place of entertainment to obtain the ticket”, subd. 3(e). It bans selling more than one copy of the same ticket, subd. 3(a)(1), and requires resellers to deliver proof of purchase “within 24 hours of the purchase,” subd. 2(d).
Two limits on scope. The disclosure duties in subdivision 2(a) through (d) apply only to a person whose “annual aggregate transactions” reach $5,000. Subd. 2(f). And movie theaters aren’t a “place of entertainment” under the definitions, subd. 1(h), so the multiplex is someone else’s problem.
Can a Minnesota fan actually sue?
Not under § 325F.676 by itself. Subdivision 5 says “The commissioner may enforce this section under section 45.027.” That’s the Department of Commerce. The section gives no private right of action, and it isn’t named in the private attorney general statute’s list, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1. That list names “section 325F.67 and other laws against false or fraudulent advertising” and “the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (sections 325F.68 to 325F.70)”. Whether a ticket-pricing statute counts as one of those “other laws” is an argument, not a given.
The Consumer Fraud Act is on the list, and that’s where the private claim lives. It makes unlawful “any fraud, unfair or unconscionable practice, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise”. Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1. “Merchandise” includes “intangibles” and “services.” § 325F.68, subd. 2.
A listing price that isn’t the price is a misleading statement made so you’ll rely on it. That’s my reading. Section 325F.676 doesn’t say a violation of it is automatically a Consumer Fraud Act violation, so that link has to be argued. But Minnesota’s ticket statute is the clearest evidence you could ask for of what the legislature considers misleading in a ticket sale.
Two doors open from there. Section 8.31, subd. 3a, lets “any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1” sue for damages, “together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees”. The catch is Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302, 314 (Minn. 2000), where the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the statute “applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.” The second door was added in 2023: § 325F.70, subd. 3, lets “a consumer injured by a violation of sections 325F.68 to 325F.70, in connection with a sale of merchandise for personal, family, household, or agricultural purposes,” recover damages and attorney fees, and it answers the Ly question in its own text: “An action brought under this section benefits the public.” A “consumer” is a natural person or family farmer.
Concert tickets are about as personal-purpose as a purchase gets. We go deeper on how § 8.31 works and on which consumer statutes actually pay elsewhere.
The fee-shifting is what makes this realistic. One fan’s loss on one order might be about $111. Nobody hires a lawyer for $111. A statute that makes the seller pay the fan’s attorney fees changes that math, and it’s the reason these claims get brought at all.
What should you keep?
The Minnesota rule turns on what you saw and when. Section 325F.676 bans a price increase “after the ticket is first displayed to the person”. So the first display is your evidence.
- A screenshot of the search results or seat map showing the listed price, before you click anything. That’s the “first displayed” price.
- A screenshot of every checkout screen, including any fee breakdown you had to expand. If the total changed between screens, the sequence proves it.
- The order confirmation and the reseller’s proof of purchase. A reseller owes you one within 24 hours, and it has to include the refund policy.
- The posted ticket limit, if you were shut out of an onsale and later saw the same seats on resale at a markup.
- Your card statement, because the charge is the damages number.
Screenshots taken on the day beat memory every time. A phone photo of a laptop screen is fine. Deleting the email because you were annoyed isn’t.
The California case is just getting to the scheduling stage. A Minnesota fan doesn’t have to wait for it. The rule here has been in the statute book since 2024, in plainer words than the order used: the first price you see is supposed to be the price.
Madgett Law, LLC represents Minnesota consumers in deceptive pricing and consumer fraud claims under the Consumer Fraud Act and the private attorney general statute, in state and federal court. If you were charged more for a ticket than the price you were shown, send us a message or call 612-470-6529. Related reading: Minnesota’s junk fee law says “include,” not “disclose” and when a credit card surcharge is legal.
Sources: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Request for Judicial Notice and Denying Request for Incorporation by Reference, FTC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08884-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2026), ECF No. 127, at 2 (“not deciding at this stage whether the FTC’s and the states’ accusations are true”), 4 (alleged “sticker shock” statement), 6–7 (plaintiffs; filing date Sept. 18, 2025), 14 (first-contact rule quoting Resort Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. FTC, 518 F.2d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 1975); alleged increase “up to 44%”), 15 (“+Fees” is vague and ambiguous; the companies’ explanation of their all-in pricing history), 15 n.3 (“a reasonable consumer would not associate “+Fees” as a 44% increase in cost“), 19 n.5 (drop-down menu as a technological measure), 20 (circumvention not limited to technological circumvention), 21 (accounts allegation; “The BOTS Act does not preclude platforms from facing liability”), 22–23 (plain meaning of “sell” does not require possession; alternative ground: voiding, reissue, and fees), 27 (motion denied as to each claim), RECAP archive on CourtListener. Complaint, id., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 43–46 ($245 list price, $662.21 total, $60.96 tax, $111.04 in mandatory fees as stated, itemized as $45.20 and $6.00 per ticket plus $8.85, which sums to $111.25; countdown clock; “+ Fees”) — allegations, not findings. Defendants’ Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, id., ECF No. 135 (Oct. 13, 2026), at 2 (“Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is misguided”), 5 (“Ticketmaster now employs all-in pricing consistent with the Commission’s rules”). Order Setting Scheduling Conference, id., ECF No. 128 (conference Oct. 29, 2026). 15 U.S.C. § 45c(a)(1)(A)–(B) (BOTS Act), Cornell Legal Information Institute. Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 90 Fed. Reg. 2066, 2067 (Jan. 10, 2025) (definition of drip pricing; effective May 12, 2025); 16 C.F.R. §§ 464.2(b)–(c), 464.4(b), eCFR. Minn. Stat. § 325F.676, subd. 1(h) (movie theaters excluded), subd. 2(a) (total cost “at all times”), 2(b) (prominence; no price increase after first display), 2(d) (proof of purchase within 24 hours), 2(f) ($5,000 threshold), subd. 3(a)(1), 3(a)(5), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) (duplicate tickets; speculative ticketing; circumvention and disguised identity; knowing sale; possession), subd. 5 (enforcement by the commissioner of commerce); 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 94, § 1 (signed May 7, 2024; effective January 1, 2025, for tickets sold on or after that date). Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (designated statutes) and subd. 3a (private remedies). Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2 (“merchandise”); § 325F.69, subd. 1 (unlawful practices); § 325F.70, subd. 3 (consumer private enforcement; “benefits the public”; “consumer” defined), as amended by 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 19, § 15. Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302, 314 (Minn. 2000) (public-benefit requirement under § 8.31, subd. 3a). Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes for all Minnesota statutes and session laws.
This article is general legal information about Minnesota and federal law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. It describes a pending case between other parties; the allegations described are unproven, and the court’s order decides only that the complaint states a claim. Nothing here predicts the outcome of that case or of any claim on your facts, and no outcome is promised or implied.