Live Nation Entertainment has pushed back on the US Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to use a recent court victory as leverage in the ongoing BOTS Act lawsuit against the company, arguing that the ruling cited by the FTC in fact strengthens its own argument for dismissal.
Last week (April 29), a court in Maryland rejected ticket broker Key Investment Group’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the FTC. The Commission sued KIG in August 2025, alleging it used illegal tactics to circumvent ticket purchase limits and resell hundreds of thousands of tickets at inflated prices, including for Taylor Swift’s blockbuster Eras Tour.
The ticket broker allegedly violated the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTS Act) through a sophisticated scheme that generated approximately USD $64 million in secondary market sales revenue. The complaint also alleged that KIG employed an arsenal of technology to defeat Ticketmaster’s anti-scalping measures.
However, in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed in November 2025 (read here), KIG argued that “Ticketmaster was aware of, and approved of, KIG’s actions, since at least 2018.”
Judge George L. Russell, III in Maryland denied KIG’s motion to dismiss, saying the BOTS act “unambiguously applies to ‘any person’ and not just to ‘bots,’” according to a court filing, which you can read here.
“The KIG decision does not support Plaintiffs’ position in this case and only bolsters Defendants’ arguments for dismissal.”
Lawyers for Live Nation
The FTC quickly flagged the development in the KIG case to the court handling the Live Nation case last week (April 30), writing in a notice of supplemental authority (read here): “The court’s order, which further supports the Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, is filed herewith as Exhibit A.”
However, Live Nation pushed back on Friday (May 1), saying: “The KIG decision does not support Plaintiffs’ position in this case and only bolsters Defendants’ arguments for dismissal.”
“Accordingly, the statutory arguments addressed in KIG are different from the arguments raised in this case—which concern the particular elements for alleging a subparagraph (B) violation.”
Lawyers for Live Nation
The ticketing giant argued that the two lawsuits are not comparable.
The KIG case was brought under subparagraph (A) of the BOTS Act, which bans circumventing a ticket issuer’s technological controls, while the case against Live Nation was filed under subparagraph (B), which concerns the subsequent sale of tickets allegedly obtained through circumvention, according to Live Nation’s response, which you can read here.
Live Nation’s lawyers at Latham & Watkins and Sidley Austin wrote: “Accordingly, the statutory arguments addressed in KIG are different from the arguments raised in this case—which concern the particular elements for alleging a subparagraph (B) violation.”
“Moreover, 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… and so the arguments advanced by Defendants here were not even at issue in KIG.”
In the KIG decision, Live Nation noted that the court repeatedly described Ticketmaster as the victim. Live Nation said: “The court described how ‘Ticketmaster has certain security measures so that consumers can purchase tickets at a reasonable price’ and how the defendants ‘bypass[ed] these security measures.’”
Live Nation said the court in the KIG case also explained that the BOTS Act targets “ticket scalpers [who] did not play by the rules.”
Live Nation’s lawyers wrote: “This understanding of the law is consistent with Defendants’ argument—and all prior BOTS Act cases—that the BOTS Act was enacted to support the efforts of platforms like Ticketmaster against scalpers, not to impose liability on the very platforms whose controls are being circumvented.”
The second argument pointed to the FTC’s claim that KIG used more than 13,000 accounts, thousands of fictitious names and credit card numbers, SIM banks, and IP proxy services tied to particular events and artists such as 49 accounts to purchase 273 Taylor Swift tickets, and 277 accounts to purchase 1,530 Bruce Springsteen tickets.
Live Nation’s legal team said: “[T]he detailed allegations of circumvention in [the KIG] case further underscore the bare-bones nature of Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case, which fails to connect any resale listing on Ticketmaster to the circumvention of any particular technological control.”
The FTC sued Live Nation and its ticketing arm, Ticketmaster, in September 2025, accusing the company of profiting from scalpers operating on its platform.
“[T]he detailed allegations of circumvention in [the kig] case further underscore the bare-bones nature of Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case, which fails to connect any resale listing on Ticketmaster to the circumvention of any particular technological control.”
Lawyers for Live Nation
In January, Live Nation asked a federal judge to throw out the case, saying the lawsuit “reflects an egregious instance of agency overreach” and that the FTC is in effect attempting to rewrite the law by holding Ticketmaster accountable for the actions of ticket resellers.
Elsewhere, in a separate long-running antitrust case against Live Nation, a federal jury found on April 15 that the firm and its ticketing division Ticketmaster illegally monopolized the US ticketing and amphitheater markets.
The result handed a victory to the coalition of 33 states and the District of Columbia that pressed the landmark antitrust case to trial after the concert giant reached a settlement with the US Department of Justice.
The DOJ sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May 2024, joined by attorneys general from dozens of states and the District of Columbia. The trial began on March 2 in Manhattan.
Live Nation settled with the DOJ in March, allowing the company to retain ownership of Ticketmaster. The deal included a $280 million fund for state damages claims, the divestiture of 13 amphitheater booking agreements, a cap on service fees at 15%, and an eight-year extension of the company’s consent decree. Live Nation subsequently confirmed the details in a press release.
An initial coalition of 27 states and the District of Columbia rejected the settlement. New York Attorney General Letitia James said it “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case.”
Judge Arun Subramanian declined to grant the mistrial but ordered the states to negotiate directly with Live Nation. Those talks failed, and the trial continued with a broader coalition of 33 states and the District of Columbia pressing their claims.
Music Business Worldwide
