Ticketmaster: The Anti-Hero of Antitrust Laws 

Mariah Glinski*

Many Taylor Swift fans, or “Swifties,” remember November 19, 2022, all too well. This was the day that tickets for Swift’s “Eras Tour” went on sale on Ticketmaster’s website. The sale did not go as planned. There were multiple issues with Ticketmaster’s website, and many fans spent the entire day in front of their computers trying to purchase tickets.¹ The fans lucky enough to purchase tickets were charged high ticket prices and Ticketmaster fees.² Ticketmaster often adopts a “Dynamic Pricing” model.³ This means that “ticket and fee prices adjust over time based on demand.”⁴ Thus, the price of tickets can differ from the amount determined by the artist and increase when more tickets are sold.  This allows Ticketmaster to charge, and profit from, increasingly high ticket prices, as they did with the Eras Tour ticket sale.  

Ticketmaster has a monopoly on the ticket sales industry. The company has controlled “over 80 percent of the marketing for primary ticketing” since 1995.⁵ This only increased when, in 2009, Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation, a company that owned 140 concert venues and was a prominent concert promoter.⁶  

How does Ticketmaster get away with having a monopoly?  The answer lies in the history and status of antitrust law enforcement in the United States.  

The Sherman and Wilson Acts were passed in 1890 to prevent corporations from combining to create a monopoly that controls the market.  Congress passed the Clayton Act in 1914 to add specificity to the Sherman and Wilson Acts. The Clayton Act stated specific types of prohibited antitrust behaviors and indicated what remedies are available.⁷  

The enforcement of antitrust laws has changed over time. In the 1960s and 70s, antitrust enforcement was rigorous, but the pendulum swung to much more lenient policies in the 1980s.⁸ In the 1990s and 2000s, antitrust enforcement became relatively moderate.⁹  While many corporations can benefit from moderate enforcement of antitrust law, “few have reaped the benefits like the entities that control America’s live entertainment industry.”¹⁰ Ticketmaster itself has defeated several antitrust suits in the past decades.¹¹  

Complaints about Ticketmaster’s business practices are nothing new, but the live entertainment industry has been essentially untouchable by antitrust actions brought by individuals.¹²  This is due, in part, to the “indirect purchaser” exemption.¹³ The Clayton Act allows individuals harmed by antitrust law violations to sue for damages.¹⁴ However, the Supreme Court has held that only “direct purchasers” have standing to sue.¹⁵ The issue with that is that individuals who purchase tickets from Ticketmaster are not direct purchasers.¹⁶ Ticket-buyers are categorized as “indirect purchasers” because the direct purchasers are the vendors hosting live events that contract with Ticketmaster.¹⁷ Long story short, it is nearly impossible for someone who purchases a ticket from Ticketmaster to successfully bring an antitrust action. Competitor companies who have brought suits against Ticketmaster have also been largely unsuccessful.¹⁸ 

Thus, Ticketmaster goes on without competition in the market.¹⁹ This has a major impact on the price of tickets to live events because “[i]n the absence of a valid competitor in the ticket industry, Ticketmaster has no incentive to lower prices.”²⁰ Ticketmaster has taken advantage of its lack of competition, and the disastrous Eras Tour ticket sale exposed the cracks in Ticketmaster’s empire. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who chairs the United States Senate’s Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antirust, and Consumer Rights, stated that “[t]he high fees, site disruptions and cancellations that the consumers experience shows how Ticketmaster’s dominant market position means the company does not face any pressure to continually innovate and improve.”²¹ With pressure from Klobuchar and other Senators after the Eras Tour ticket sale, the United States Department of Justice opened an antitrust investigation of Ticketmaster and Live Nation.²² 

Given that judicial remedies have proven ineffective, the best solution to Ticketmaster’s unchecked monopoly is likely legislative. Shortly after the Eras Tour ticket sale, the Minnesota House proposed a bill “to increase transparency around ticket prices” that was appropriately titled “HF1989,” named after Taylor Swift’s album.²³ This bill would “require upfront pricing for all fees and charges,” and prevent companies from “double-dipping” by charging fees every time a ticket is resold.²⁴  

While the Eras Tour ticket sale was a difficult experience for many fans, perhaps this public outcry is exactly what the United States needs for antitrust reform to begin again.  

---

* Mariah Glinski, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2023, Former Senior Editor.

¹ Nilay Patel, Taylor Swift vs. Ronald Reagan: the Ticketmaster Story, Verge (Mar. 21, 2023), https://www.theverge.com/23645057/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-eras-tour-beyonce-antitrust-monopoly-reagan-senate-hearing-congress.

² Id.

³ How Are Ticket Prices and Fees Determined?, Ticketmaster Help Center, https://ticketmaster-us.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/9663528775313-How-are-ticket-prices-and-fees-determined- (last visited Apr. 16, 2023).

⁴ Id.

⁵ Patel, supra note 1.

⁶ Nathan B. Grezgorek, The Price of Admission: How Inconsistent Enforcement of Antitrust Laws in America’s Live Entertainment Sector Hurts the Average Consumer, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 261, 272 (2010).

⁷ Id. at 265.

⁸ Id. at 268.

⁹ Id.

¹⁰ Id. at 269.

¹¹ See Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140 F.3d 1166, 1168 (8th Cir. 1998); Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs. Inc. 536 F.Supp.2d 1191, 1199 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

¹² Grezgorek, supra note 6, at 278.

¹³ Id.

¹⁴ 15 U.S.C. § 15.

¹⁵ Ill. Brick Co. v. Ill., 431 U.S. 720, 725 (1977).

¹⁶ Campos, 140 F.3d at 1169–72.

¹⁷ Id.

¹⁸ Grezgorek, supra note 6, at 279–81; See Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1224 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., No. 06 Civ. 1202, 2009 WL 1117278, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2009).

¹⁹ Grezgorek, supra note 6, at 281.

²⁰ Id. at 282.

²¹ Mark Savage & Jason Armesto, Ticketmaster Apologises for Taylor Swift Tour Sales Fiasco, BBC News (Jan. 24, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64384304.

²² Rachel Treisman, Senators Are Calling on the Justice Department to Look into Ticketmaster’s Practices, NPR (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/02/23/1158998797/ticketmaster-letter-senators-justice-department.

²³ Grace Deng, After Taylor Swift Ticketmaster Fiasco, Minnesota House Looks to Require Ticket Price Transparency, Minn. Reformer (Feb. 27, 2023), https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/02/27/after-taylor-swift-ticketmaster-fiasco-minnesota-house-looks-to-increase-ticket-price-transparency.

²⁴ Id.