Live Nation Says Ticketmaster Is “Protected Party,” Not Violator, in FTC BOTS Act Case

Live Nation and Ticketmaster are attempting to turn a ruling in the FTC’s lawsuit against a Maryland ticket broker into a defense of their own conduct, arguing the ruling supports dismissal of the government’s BOTS Act lawsuit against them.

In a May 1 filing in federal court in California (embedded below), the companies pushed back on the FTC’s attempt to cite the Key Investment Group (KIG) decision as supplemental authority (embedded below). The agency had told the court a day earlier that a Maryland judge’s refusal to dismiss the KIG case “further supports” its opposition to Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s own dismissal bid.

RELATED: Federal Judge Lets FTC’s BOTS Act Case Against Key Investment Group Move Forward
FTC Pushes Back on Ticketmaster’s Attempt to Use Its Own Policies to Dismiss BOTS Act Case
Ticketmaster Asks Court to Dismiss FTC Lawsuit, Arguing BOTS Act Doesn’t Apply to It

The companies disputed that characterization, writing that the KIG decision “does not support Plaintiffs’ position in this case and only bolsters Defendants’ arguments for dismissal.”

The dispute centers on two related BOTS Act cases. In Maryland, the FTC sued Key Investment Group and affiliated broker entities, alleging they used thousands of Ticketmaster accounts, fictitious identities, proxy IP addresses and SIM cards to exceed ticket limits and acquire large volumes of tickets for resale. Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III denied KIG’s motion to dismiss, rejecting the argument that the BOTS Act applies only to automated bots rather than coordinated purchasing efforts.

Russell wrote that the statute does not define “bots” and instead applies to “any person” who circumvents a ticket issuer’s security measures. He also said allegations that Ticketmaster tolerated broker activity may become relevant later, but do not defeat the FTC’s claims at the pleading stage.

The FTC has pointed to that reasoning in its case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, filed in September. The agency alleges the companies allowed high-volume brokers to bypass ticket limits and then profited when those tickets were resold on Ticketmaster’s secondary marketplace. The complaint also accuses them of deceptive pricing practices and misleading statements to consumers and artists.

Live Nation’s latest filing attempts to reframe the issue. It argues that in the KIG case, Ticketmaster is not the alleged violator but the entity whose systems were circumvented.

“The KIG court consistently characterized Ticketmaster as the entity whose security measures were being circumvented—i.e., the protected party under the BOTS Act, not a violator,” the company’s lawyers wrote.

That distinction sits at the center of the companies’ motion to dismiss. Live Nation characterizes the KIG case as a straightforward application of the law against brokers who allegedly bypassed Ticketmaster’s controls to obtain tickets. By contrast, it argues the FTC’s case relies on a different provision governing the sale of tickets obtained through such circumvention.

According to the filing, that difference requires the FTC to do more than allege brokers exceeded posted limits. It must connect specific resale listings on Ticketmaster to tickets obtained through circumvention of particular technological measures.

“Although it involves a subparagraph (A) claim, the FTC’s complaint in KIG alleged the kinds of specific facts demonstrating a BOTS Act violation that are missing from the complaint in this case,” the companies argued.

Live Nation argues the specific details brought in the KIG case highlight what it describes as the “bare-bones” nature of the FTC’s case against Ticketmaster, which it says fails to tie resale listings on its platform to the circumvention of specific technological controls.

The FTC’s theory is broader. The agency alleges Ticketmaster publicly represented that it enforced strict ticket limits while knowing brokers routinely evaded those limits through multiple accounts and proxy IP addresses. It further claims Ticketmaster allowed those tickets to be resold on its platform and profited from additional fees and markups.

The complaint also cites internal communications, including an allegation that a senior executive wrote the company would “turn a blind eye as a matter of policy” to violations of posted ticket limits. The FTC has also alleged that Ticketmaster’s TradeDesk software helped brokers manage inventory acquired across multiple accounts, giving the company visibility into high-volume activity.

That tension is now before the California court. The FTC says the Maryland ruling confirms that the BOTS Act applies beyond automated software and supports enforcement when ticket limits and safeguards are bypassed. Live Nation argues the same decision shows Ticketmaster is the type of platform the law was intended to protect, not penalize.

The Maryland ruling does not resolve that question. It denied a motion to dismiss in a separate case and emphasized that the court was evaluating whether the FTC had plausibly alleged a violation, not determining liability. Even so, the decision has quickly become a point of contention in the Live Nation case.

The dispute also unfolds alongside broader legal challenges facing the company. In separate antitrust litigation in New York, a federal jury on April 15 found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable on monopolization claims brought by a coalition of state attorneys general, with remedies still to be decided.

The FTC’s BOTS Act case is narrower but focuses on a related piece of the ticketing ecosystem: Ticketmaster’s relationship with high-volume resellers, its role in primary ticketing, and its ability to collect fees when tickets move into the secondary market.

For Live Nation, the filing seeks to separate those issues and cast Ticketmaster as a platform harmed by broker circumvention. For the FTC, the case turns on whether a company that allegedly knew about, tolerated and profited from that activity can rely on its own safeguards as a defense.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.

FTC’s Submission

Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s Submission