Last month, a federal court in California denied Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s motion to dismiss a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit challenging several aspects of their ticketing practices, including their display of mandatory fees.
The FTC, joined by seven states, alleges that Ticketmaster advertised ticket prices that excluded mandatory fees, which were disclosed later in the purchase process and could raise the total cost by as much as 44%. The court concluded that the FTC plausibly alleged deception under Section 5 even though consumers saw the total price before completing their purchases. The lawsuit also includes claims concerning Ticketmaster’s alleged circumvention of ticket purchase limits and its dealings with ticket brokers, including claims under the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act. The court allowed those claims to proceed as well.
The ruling underscores a broader lesson for businesses that advertise prices with mandatory fees: disclosing the full cost before checkout may not cure a potentially misleading price presented earlier in the consumer journey. The decision also suggests that even a “+Fees” disclosure may fall short when it leaves consumers without a meaningful sense of what they will ultimately pay.
Link to Why Ticketmaster’s Fee Disclosures May Be Deceptive Why Ticketmaster’s Fee Disclosures May Be Deceptive
Live Nation and Ticketmaster argued that their pricing was not deceptive because consumers saw the final price, fees included, before buying. The court disagreed.
The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the FTC Act “is violated if it induces the first contact through deception, even if the buyer later becomes fully informed before entering the contract.” The FTC alleged that Ticketmaster first displayed a ticket’s face-value price, which consumers could use to filter their options, and that this price did not include mandatory fees. Those fees were disclosed later in the purchase process.
According to the court, those allegations plausibly showed that consumers were drawn in by lower advertised prices before being presented with a higher total price. Showing the full total before the purchase was complete did not resolve the alleged deception.
Link to FTC Deception Claims Versus State Consumer Protection Law FTC Deception Claims Versus State Consumer Protection Law
Interestingly, the federal court in Maryland reached a different conclusion on a putative class action claim against a Ticketmaster competitor, Vivid Seats, under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
There, the court found that plaintiff had failed to allege reliance, an essential element of a plaintiff’s claim under the Maryland statute, where the full price was disclosed before the purchase was consummated and plaintiff had not alleged that she would not have bought the ticket in question if she had known the full price at the beginning of her purchase journey. Reliance is not an element of a Section 5 deception claim.
Link to A “+Fees” Disclosure May Not Be Enough A “+Fees” Disclosure May Not Be Enough
The court also rejected the argument that displaying “+Fees” next to the initial price adequately disclosed the extra charges. The court called the label “vague and ambiguous.” Even if it tells consumers that fees will apply, it does not tell them how much, and the amount “can be significant.” As the court put it, “a reasonable consumer would not associate ‘+Fees’ as a 44% increase in cost.”
That conclusion reflects a familiar advertising law principle: a truthful disclosure may not cure a misleading net impression. For pricing claims, the decision suggests that simply flagging that mandatory charges exist may not be enough when the upfront price materially understates what consumers will actually pay.
Link to FTC Junk Fees Rule Raises Pricing Stakes FTC Junk Fees Rule Raises Pricing Stakes
The decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of “junk fees” and drip pricing. The FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, which took effect in May 2025, requires businesses selling live-event tickets and short-term lodging to display the total price, including mandatory fees, upfront. In explaining its historical approach to pricing, Ticketmaster argued that adopting all-in pricing before a nationwide rule would have put it at a competitive disadvantage because consumers could instead choose platforms advertising lower upfront prices. The court viewed that explanation as supporting the FTC’s theory that those prices could draw consumers in through deception.
Although the court was deciding only whether the FTC had adequately pleaded its claims, not whether Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s practices actually violated the FTC Act, the decision is another reason for advertisers to look closely at how prices are presented throughout the consumer journey.
The lesson extends beyond ticket sellers. Where mandatory fees are unavoidable, businesses should be cautious about leading with a price that excludes them and relying on later disclosures to reveal the total price. At least under this court’s reasoning, showing consumers the full price before they pay may still be too late if the initial advertised price excluded mandatory fees.
For more insights into advertising law, bookmark the All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a podcast from Venable.