Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING NEWS: Ticketmaster: Bi-partisan Senate group references Kid Rock on amicus notice in FTC suit against Ticketmaster, (Feb 5, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The Senators said they wanted to offer their unique legislative expertise to rebut Ticketmaster’s assertion that they passed the BOTS Act to protect platforms like Ticketmaster from bad actors.

On January 26, 2026, United States Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), John Cornyn (R-Tex), Josh Hawley (R-Mo), John Kennedy (R-La), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) moved for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the pending FTC action against Ticketmaster and Live Nation Entertainment. The FTC brought the complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California after President Trump indicated, early last year, that he wanted the FTC to enforce the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 (the BOTS Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45c, rigorously. The Senators argued the court should deny Ticketmaster’s pending motion to dismiss because, as the FTC alleged in its complaint, Ticketmaster violated the BOTS Act by selling what it knew were ill-gotten tickets, a “BOTS Act violation, plain and simple.” More generally, the Senators urged the court to consider that they intended the BOTS Act to protect American consumers, not platforms like Ticketmaster (FTC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08884-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026)).

Background. The FTC and seven states sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation Entertainment (collectively, Ticketmaster) alleging violation of the BOTS Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act by facilitating the resale of bot-acquired tickets and misleading consumers through deceptive pricing and ticket-limit disclosures. Ticketmaster, a subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, provides primary and secondary ticketing services for live events as the nation’s largest ticketing company.

On January 6, 2026, Ticketmaster filed a motion to dismiss the FTC complaint in its entirety. Ticketmaster contended the FTC and seven states advanced an unprecedented and legally flawed theory that misapplies the BOTS Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Among other things, Ticketmaster said the BOTS Act targets scalpers, not ticketing resale platforms, and the complaint failed to allege specific technological circumvention, any particular unlawfully acquired ticket, or requisite knowledge.

On January 30, 2026, the bi-partisan group of Senators moved for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. The Senators said all parties consented to their motion and the defendants indicated they did not oppose it.

Senators’ interest. In the notice of motion, Sen. Blackburn expressed her interest and insights in her roles both representing the creative economic interests of Tennessee and as a primary architect of what ultimately became the BOTS Act. Sens. Blumenthal, Cornyn, Hawley, Kennedy, Luján and Moreno said they shared Sen. Blackburn’s interest in the correct interpretation and enforcement of the BOTS Act “to protect American consumers and the integrity of the live-entertainment marketplace.” Like Sen. Blackburn, Sen. Luján voted in favor of the BOTS Act while he served in the House. Sen. Blumenthal co-sponsored the Senate version of the BOTS ACT, and Sen. Cornyn voted to pass the Senate version of the Act into law. Sens. Kennedy, Hawley, and Moreno, meanwhile, “all currently serve as legislators representing constituents who are directly affected by Ticketmaster’s conduct.”

Proposed brief. The Senators said the proposed amicus brief offers their unique legislative perspectives on interpretation and enforcement of the BOTS Act, both in reference to its plain text and its legislative history. The Senators said the brief responds directly to Ticketmaster assertions about the legislative intent behind the BOTS Act.

While Ticketmaster asserted it does not “sell or offer to sell” resale tickets within the meaning of the BOTS Act, and that ticket scalpers cannot “circumvent” Ticketmaster technological controls within the meaning of the Act if Ticketmaster allegedly “allowed” them to do so, the Senators said they want to explain how the plain text of the BOTS Act “clearly applies to ticket platforms like Ticketmaster that knowingly enable ticket scalpers.” The Senators intended the Act to protect consumers, not platforms.

The Senators also emphasized that the FTC suit involves matters of great public interest and concern. To illustrate the point, one day earlier, on January 29, 2026, the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Technology, and Data Privacy of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing to “discuss live performance ticket sale practices” and “fees charged by primary and secondary resellers.” That hearing featured Ticketmaster’s General Counsel, Dan Wall, and Robert Richie, popularly known as Kid Rock, among others. The Senators said the hearing “touched repeatedly on this very case.” Kid Rock criticized Ticketmaster “triple dip fees” collected whenever the company sells scalped tickets, a fact the FTC alleged in the instant complaint.

Plain prohibition. The Senators’ proposed 24-page amicus brief asserts that the plain text of the BOTS Act prohibits anyone, including platforms, from knowingly enabling ticket scalpers. The Senators noted how ticket scalpers buy up tickets with no intention of using them, yet ticket platforms like Ticketmaster charge transaction fees at each stage that scalped tickets are sold. The Senators said they expressly designed the BOTS Act to counteract this kind of profiteering at eventgoer expense.

The Senators continued that ticket scalpers “frequently circumvent” Ticketmaster technological controls, and yet Ticket master continues to sell their “illicitly procured tickets” while reaping massive profits in the process. The Senators said Ticketmaster’s conduct is a plain violation of the BOTS Act.

Contrary to Ticketmaster’s motion to dismiss, it “sells or offers to sell” tickets within the meaning of the BOTS Act. The BOTS Act does not call for a narrow reading of the word “sell.” In the ordinary meaning, people can and do sell things they do not possess or own. For example, realtors sell real estate. The Senators urged that case law bolsters the commonsense meaning here. See, e.g., Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 642–43 (1988); cf. Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 11 (1927).

In the Senators’ view, Ticketmaster’s “contorted” reading of the BOTS Act does not comport with its “careful structure” insofar as a subparagraph specifically prohibits sales that involve illicit ticket procurement with knowledge, including the knowledge that platform enablers like Ticketmaster have in selling scalped tickets.

Even in the alternative that Ticketmaster would admit to selling tickets in collusion with scalpers, the BOTS Act nonetheless forbids circumvention of ticket platform technological controls. In contrast to the tort of trespass, the BOTS Act does not include ticket platform permission as a defense. The Senators concluded here that the BOTS Act contains no implicit immunity for platforms.

Consumer protection. In conclusion, the Senators’ brief said that they intended the BOTS Act to protect consumers, not ticketing platforms, from the very beginning. Scalper circumvention of platform technological controls, even with platform permission, harms event-going consumers. The Senators cited to the legislative record at considerable length. They noted that any real concern for ticket platforms was conspicuously missing. Their brief urged the court that Ticketmaster’s constrictive reading of the BOTS Act would allow ticket platforms to collude with ticket scalpers to harm ordinary consumers, “precisely what the BOTS Act sought to stop.” The Senators concluded that rigorous enforcement of the BOTS Act has been overdue. The amicus brief noted that President Trump, in March, 2025, indicated that he would correct the historically lax enforcement of the BOTS Act.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-08884-MEMF-MAA.

Judge: Frimpong, M.

Attorneys: Aaron Michael Schue for the FTC. Alexander Wyman (Latham and Watkins LLP) for Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Companies: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

News: Advertising FederalTradeCommissionNews ConsumerProtection CaliforniaNews