Ticketmaster Hit with Federal Class Action Lawsuit Over “Junk Fees”

A new proposed class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges that Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its ticketing subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC use “bait-and-switch” tactics by advertising deceptively low ticket prices online, only to tack on hefty fees near the end of checkout.

Four plaintiffs—hailing from California, Florida, New York, and Illinois—brought the complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, accusing the ticketing giant of misleading consumers with “hidden junk fees” that inflate overall costs and lead to unfair profits.

“The scale of the defendants’ malfeasance is enormous,” the complaint says, pointing to Live Nation Entertainment’s own boasting of having sold more than 300 million tickets in 2023 alone in that year’s earnings report. “The scale of Defendants’ malfeasance is enormous. In 2023, Live Nation, through Ticketmaster LLC, collected fees on 329 million tickets.3 “Extrapolated over the proposed class period, Defendants have collected unfair and deceptive fees through their drip pricing practices on as many as 1 billion tickets.”

“Ticketmaster’s unfair and deceptive purchase flow violates the rights of consumers across the country.”

According to the 56-page complaint, Ticketmaster’s primary deception involves what is often called “drip pricing.” Plaintiffs allege that consumers are initially shown an artificially low ticket price, only to discover large, mandatory fees as they finalize their purchase. By the time the true price of the ticket is revealed—which includes service fees, facility charges, and processing fees—plaintiffs say consumers are so far along in the checkout process and facing a short “countdown clock” that they feel pressured to complete the purchase, even if the final price is significantly higher than the originally advertised figure.

The complaint characterizes this practice as a classic “bait and switch.” The “bait,” say plaintiffs, comes in the form of a low, attention-grabbing ticket cost, while the “switch” occurs at checkout, when “exorbitant” fees are added to that base price. Notably, the suit cites statements from Live Nation itself acknowledging that “it is no more difficult” to show all-in pricing at the beginning of a transaction than it is to show it only at checkout.

Growing Scrutiny of “Hidden Junk Fees”

The complaint points out that “junk fees” have become a national talking point, condemned at the federal level by the White House and scrutinized by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). While the FTC is set to implement new trade rules banning certain kinds of hidden fees, the plaintiffs say Ticketmaster’s current practice remains deceptive and causes widespread harm.

READ MORE: FTC rule barring “Junk Fees” scheduled to go live in May

Plaintiffs also highlight that in some states where new legislation bars ticket sellers from advertising only a partial ticket price, Ticketmaster has begun showing so-called “all-in” pricing. Yet for events outside of those specific jurisdictions, consumers around the country often still see the lower “base” price without the required fees displayed upfront. The complaint notes that California consumers have found themselves hit by hidden fees when buying tickets to events in other states, despite California’s own efforts to combat such practices.

Dark Patterns and the Countdown Clock

One striking aspect of the lawsuit is the allegation that Ticketmaster’s website and mobile app employ “digital dark patterns” to further manipulate consumers into finalizing a purchase at an inflated cost. These include:

• Countdown Timers: A ticking clock during checkout, which the complaint says pressures buyers to hurry, fearing they could lose selected seats if time runs out.
• Pop-Up Warnings: Messages that claim “tickets are selling fast” or “this event is almost sold out,” creating a false sense of urgency.
• Obscured Fees: A design that hides the exact amount of fees until the final screen. Even then, details of each fee may be visible only if a user clicks a small dropdown arrow.

The complaint alleges these mechanisms leave consumers little opportunity to pause, compare, or rethink their choices.

Laws Cited in the Complaint

The lawsuit asserts claims under multiple state consumer protection statutes, including:

• California: Alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL).
• New York: Alleged violations of New York’s Arts & Cultural Affairs Law, as well as General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.
• Illinois: Alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
• Florida: Alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Seeking Damages and an Injunction

The four plaintiffs—Michelle Madrigal (California), Helen Pantuso (Florida), Jessica Tempest (New York), and Tracey Sunde (Illinois)—request that the court certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all similarly affected U.S. consumers. They seek damages, restitution, and other forms of relief, including an injunction that would require Ticketmaster to display all mandatory fees at the outset of the purchase process.

The complaint points to Ticketmaster’s market dominance, stating that it sold fees on “329 million tickets in 2023” and alleging that many fans have “no choice” but to purchase through the platform for certain events, where venue or promoter exclusivity exists.

Ticketmaster and Live Nation have not yet issued a public response to the complaint. While the lawsuit remains in an early stage, the filing references the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision (Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.) finding parts of Ticketmaster’s arbitration provision unconscionable. According to plaintiffs, this means consumers are not bound to private individual arbitrations, leaving the door open for a potential class-action trial.

READ MORE: “Unconscionable” – 9th Circuit rejects Live Nation’s atrbitration appeal

The full complaint, filed on March 18, is available at below: