Introduction

A proposed class action lawsuit is underway against Ticketmaster and its parent Live Nation Entertainment, alleging a deceptive “bait-and-switch” pricing scheme in the sale of event tickets. Consumers from multiple states claim Ticketmaster entices customers with initially low ticket prices, only to add substantial mandatory fees at checkout, inflating the final price unexpectedly. The complaint highlights tactics such as on-screen countdown timers that create a false sense of urgency and investment in the purchase, distracting buyers from the ultimate higher price until late in the process. This case, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., is notable not only for its high-profile defendants but also for its implications: it reflects growing public and regulatory scrutiny of “junk fees” and hidden charges in e-commerce.[i]

Corporate and legal stakeholders are closely watching this litigation as a bellwether for pricing transparency standards. The fact that a federal judge has allowed the suit to proceed past the initial dismissal stage signals companies could face significant legal risk if their online pricing practices are deemed misleading. Indeed, as plaintiffs’ counsel observed, consumers are “fed up” with companies “nickel and diming” them with add-on fees – making this lawsuit a potentially important step toward greater accountability in pricing practices.[ii]

Facts

The lawsuit was filed in March 2025 by a group of ticket buyers from California, Florida, New York, and Illinois. These individuals – originally four, now five named plaintiffs – seek to represent statewide classes of consumers in each of their respective states who purchased tickets through Ticketmaster (which services Live Nation events) and paid extra fees that were not included in the initially advertised price. The case is captioned Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[iii] They allege that hundreds of millions of ticket purchases have been affected by this practice; according to the complaint, Ticketmaster (through Live Nation events) added fees on 329 million tickets in 2023 alone, underscoring the widespread impact of the alleged scheme.[iv]

The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster lures consumers with artificially low headline prices on tickets, only to later surprise them at checkout with “exorbitant junk fees” that dramatically increase the total cost.[v] The complaint describes a deliberate strategy: Ticketmaster’s website delays disclosure of mandatory service fees until the final purchase screen, using design features like a countdown clock to impose time pressure and a false sense of commitment on buyers. This delay in fee disclosure is alleged to be deceptive and unfair, as consumers are led to invest time and emotional commitment under the false impression that the ticket price is lower than it truly is. In short, the plaintiffs characterize the practice as a classic “bait-and-switch” – advertising one price to get customers in the door (or on the website) and then switching to a higher price by adding fees at the last moment.[vi] The lawsuit likely asserts violations of consumer protection and fair-trade laws (for example, state laws against false advertising and unfair business practices), given the references to specific statutes in the parties’ arguments.

Ticketmaster and Live Nation strenuously deny their pricing approach is unlawful. In May 2025, the companies moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state any viable claim of deception. They contend that Ticketmaster’s website does disclose the added fees in multiple different ways throughout the purchasing process, and that consumers are shown the total including fees before finalizing any purchase.[vii] According to the defense, this means they are in compliance with applicable pricing laws – for instance, they cite New York’s Arts and Cultural Affairs Law and California’s “Honest Pricing” law – since the full price is revealed prior to the point of sale. Furthermore, Ticketmaster/Live Nation assert that even if the pricing was poorly received by customers, it does not rise to a legally actionable injury: the plaintiffs suffered no concrete harm because they ultimately agreed to pay the total price (which was disclosed at checkout) and received the tickets they paid for.[viii] On this point, the companies challenge the plaintiffs’ standing to sue, essentially arguing the customers cannot show a tangible economic loss from the alleged scheme. Defendants also invoke the voluntary payment doctrine – since the buyers voluntarily paid the fees, they argue the consumers cannot later claim those charges as damages.[ix] Finally, Ticketmaster contends that the request for injunctive relief (a court order to stop the practice) is moot or unfounded, because now that the plaintiffs are aware of the alleged “deception,” they cannot be misled by it in the future.[x]

On July 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, issuing a brief order denying the motion and allowing the case to move forward. In his order, Judge Walter concluded that the issues raised by Ticketmaster and Live Nation would be “more appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment” after evidence is gathered, rather than at the pleading stage.[xi] This indicates that, taking the complaint’s allegations as true, the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the applicable legal standards. In reaching this decision, the court applied the familiar Rule 12(b)(6) standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim: such a motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and can only be granted if the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege enough factual matter to support a viable claim. Here, Judge Walter found the plaintiffs’ theories were legally cognizable (at least at first glance) and that their detailed factual allegations – describing the fee displays, the countdown clock, and the consumer experience – met the threshold of plausibility.

Essentially, while the defendants argued disclosures were present and no one was harmed, the court determined that those arguments delve into factual territory inappropriate for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Instead, the merit of such questions should be addressed with an evidentiary record, at the summary judgment phase or trial, rather than on the bare pleadings. By denying the motion, the court has allowed the plaintiffs’ case to proceed into discovery. (Notably, the case is still at an early stage; the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final ruling on the merits, but it permits the plaintiffs to gather evidence and potentially seek class certification for their claims.)

Analysis

Judge Walter’s decision to let the Ticketmaster fee lawsuit proceed is significant for both legal and business communities. Legally, it establishes that the plaintiffs’ allegations – if true – describe a potentially actionable deceptive practice, one that a court is willing to scrutinize in depth rather than dismiss out of hand. The court’s refusal to throw out the case at the pleading stage sends a cautionary message: practices like drip pricing (the gradual addition of mandatory fees) might give rise to viable claims under consumer protection laws. In practical terms, this means that large companies employing similar pricing models could face prolonged litigation and will not be able to easily escape liability by simply pointing to fine-print disclosures or final-step price revelations. The ruling underscores that transparency in pricing is not just a matter of regulatory compliance but also of legal risk management. Even though Ticketmaster argued that customers see the total price before purchase, the judge found that the manner and timing of disclosure are important enough issues to require fact-finding (for example, to determine whether average consumers are being misled despite the eventual disclosure). For other businesses, this highlights the growing judicial willingness to examine the user experience of online sales for potential deception, not merely the existence of disclosures in a technical sense.

Clients and companies in the e-commerce and digital services space can draw several lessons from this ongoing litigation:

• Immediately audit how prices and fees are presented on your platforms. Ensure any additional fees (service charges, convenience fees, etc.) are clearly disclosed as early as possible – ideally at the first indication of price – rather than surprising the customer at checkout. This reduces the likelihood that the pricing model will be viewed as misleading.
• Stay up-to-date with state and federal laws on pricing transparency (for example, the New York and California laws cited by Ticketmaster’s defense). If operating in multiple regions, adhere to the most stringent applicable requirements to create a uniform, compliant approach. Remember that showing the final price only at the end might satisfy the minimum legal requirement in some places, but it could still be deemed deceptive under general consumer protection statutes if the overall practice is confusing or unfair.
• Be cautious with website features that pressure consumers, such as countdown timers, limited-time offers, or messages that imply scarcity or urgency. While these can be effective marketing tools, in contexts where the final price is higher than initially presented, such tactics might contribute to a court’s perception of deception or unfairness. Consider whether these elements are necessary and balance them with clear notifications about pending fees or price changes.
• In anticipation of potential challenges, maintain thorough records of how prices and fees are disclosed in your sales process. If a lawsuit arises, the company will want to demonstrate that a reasonable consumer should have been aware of the fees. This could include screenshots of the purchasing workflow, user testing results showing that consumers notice fee disclosures, and prominent FAQs or help text about pricing. In this case, Ticketmaster argued fees were disclosed “in multiple different ways” – a claim that will be tested against the plaintiffs’ experiences.[xii] Proactively ensuring and documenting clarity can both prevent suits and strengthen the defense if one is filed.
• The Ticketmaster case illustrates that even industry leaders are not immune to class-action litigation over digital sales practices. If a business model involves add-on fees, factor in the risk of legal challenges. This includes the possibility of class actions which can be expensive to defend and carry significant damages or settlements if the class is large. Consider budgeting for legal review of pricing strategies and possibly adjusting practices before they attract legal scrutiny. It is often far cheaper to fix a potentially deceptive practice now than to litigate it later.

With the motion to dismiss denied, the Madrigal v. Ticketmaster lawsuit is moving into the discovery phase. In the coming months, both sides will gather evidence – plaintiffs will seek internal documents, communications, and data from Ticketmaster to support their claims about intentional fee concealment and consumer impact, while defendants will look for evidence that consumers were adequately informed or not harmed. A significant mid-term milestone will be class certification: the plaintiffs will eventually ask the court to certify the state classes they propose, which Ticketmaster/Live Nation will likely oppose. How the class certification battle unfolds will be crucial, as it determines the size and scope of potential liability. Looking further ahead, the defendants are expected to renew their challenges at the summary judgment stage, as Judge Walter’s order explicitly contemplated.

The court’s handling of this matter may set a precedent (or at least a persuasive example) for how far companies can go in separating fees from base prices online. For corporate counsel, the key takeaway is to stay proactive: assess your organization’s risk in light of these developments and take steps now to bolster transparency and consumer fairness in pricing. Doing so can mitigate the litigation exposure illustrated by the Ticketmaster case and demonstrate a good-faith commitment to fair dealing that may discourage would-be plaintiffs.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

More by this author

From Code to Courtroom: Raine v. OpenAI and the Future of AI Responsibility Collision, Care, and Clarity: California Supreme Court Reins in MICRA’s Statute of Limitations in Ambulance Crash Nickeled, Dimed, and Docketed: The Legal Reckoning for Ticketmaster’s Fee Model Pasta Sauce, Preservatives, and the Price of “Natural”: Target’s Labeling Lands It in Hot Water Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players It Ends with Lawsuits for Hollywood Co-Stars Stale Bread: Workers Accuse Panera of Wage Theft Red Hot Water: Former Chili Pepper Guitarist Sued in Wrongful Death Action

Sources

[i] Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. Filed Mar. 18, 2024).

[ii] Wood, Lauraann, “Ticketmaster Deceptive Pricing Suit Moves Forward, For Now,” July 9, 2025, via https://www.law360.com/articles/2362876/ticketmaster-deceptive-pricing-suit-moves-forward-for-now.

[iii] Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2025).

[iv] Complaint ¶7, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. Filed Mar. 18, 2024).

[v] Complaint ¶2, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. Filed Mar. 18, 2024).

[vi] Id.

[vii] Complaint ¶3, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. Filed Mar. 18, 2024).

[viii] Wood, Lauraann, “Ticketmaster Deceptive Pricing Suit Moves Forward, For Now,” July 9, 2025, via https://www.law360.com/articles/2362876/ticketmaster-deceptive-pricing-suit-moves-forward-for-now.

[ix] Wood, Lauraann, “Ticketmaster Deceptive Pricing Suit Moves Forward, For Now,” July 9, 2025, via https://www.law360.com/articles/2362876/ticketmaster-deceptive-pricing-suit-moves-forward-for-now.

[x] Complaint ¶145, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. Filed Mar. 18, 2024).

[xi] Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint at 3, Madrigal et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2025).

[xii] Wood, Lauraann, “Ticketmaster Deceptive Pricing Suit Moves Forward, For Now,” July 9, 2025, via https://www.law360.com/articles/2362876/ticketmaster-deceptive-pricing-suit-moves-forward-for-now.