The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission were directed by President Trump to conduct an investigation into ticket scalping pursuant to Executive Order 14254 “Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market.”

This led directly to both agencies inviting public comments on the state of the live event ticketing market—an industry riddled with speculation, opacity, and middlemen who seem to make money without ever attending a show. Over 4000 artists, fans, economists, state attorneys general, and industry veterans all weighed in. And the record reveals something important particularly regarding resellers: there’s a rising consensus that the resellers are engaged in some really shady practices designed for one purpose–to extract as much money as possible from fans and artists without regard to the damage it does to the entire artist-fan relationship.

Over the next several posts, I’ll be highlighting individual comments submitted to the DOJ/FTC inquiry. Some are technical, some personal, and some blisteringly direct—but all speak to the fundamental imbalance between artists, fans, and the multi-layered resellers, bots, and platforms that profit from both ends of the transaction.

This isn’t just about high prices. It’s about ownership, transparency, control, and accountability and the lenders who fuel the fraud. Many of the commenters argue that ticketing is no longer just a marketplace—it’s a manipulated, closed-loop ecosystem in which the reseller’s house always wins. And for too long, the architects of that system have claimed there’s nothing to see here. There is plenty to see here.

Each post in this series will spotlight one of these submissions that I have selected—not just to amplify the voices that took time to respond, but to help connect the dots on how the ticketing industry got here, who’s benefiting, and what needs to change.

We all have to be grateful to Kid Rock who brought this debacle to President Trump’s attention and to the President himself for making it a priority. We also have to thank Senator Marsha Blackburn for her continued defense of artists through her BOTS Act co-sponsored with Senator Blumenthal. Senator Blackburn has long opposed the use of automated fraudster systems to extract rents from fans and artists and we hope that the DOJ/FTC inquiry will also shed light on why there have been so few prosecutions.

Stay tuned for the first in the series. Spoiler alert: it’s going to be hard to argue that this is a “free market” when fans are bidding against bots and artists are not allowed to control the face value of their own shows. 

This is a summary of a lot of the more involved issues that came up in the comments:

1. Speculative Ticket Listings

Resellers frequently list tickets for sale without possessing them, misleading consumers and inflating prices. These listings distort market data and should be treated as deceptive under federal consumer protection law.

2. Price Manipulation Through Bots

Automated bots are used to hoard tickets and create artificial scarcity, driving up resale prices. This not only violates the BOTS Act but enables unfair competition that harms consumers.

3. Deceptive Use of Venue, Artist, or Promoter Branding

Resellers often use official names and branding in ads, URLs, and metadata as well as typosquatting or URL hacking to trick consumers into believing they are purchasing from authorized sources. These deceptive practices undermine market transparency.

4. Misleading “Sold Out” or Urgency Claims

Some platforms advertise that events are “sold out” or create false urgency (e.g., “only 2 left at this price”) when primary tickets are still available. These tactics constitute false advertising and manipulative marketing.

5. Concealment of Total Ticket Cost 

Fees are often hidden until checkout, misleading consumers about the true price. This “drip pricing” violates FTC guidance on transparent pricing and impairs consumers’ ability to comparison shop.

6. Resale of Non-Transferable or Restricted Tickets

Resellers list tickets that are explicitly non-transferable or designated will-call only, often in violation of the event organizer’s terms. Consumers risk being denied entry without recourse.

7. Lack of Delivery Guarantees and Refund Accountability

Many platforms offer no guaranteed delivery or refund protection when tickets are invalid or undelivered—despite charging substantial markups—leaving consumers with no remedy.

8. One-Sided Arbitration and Waiver Clauses

Some resale platforms impose forced arbitration clauses and class action waivers, effectively denying consumers access to meaningful remedies, even in cases of systemic fraud.

9. Failure to Disclose Broker Status or Ticket Quantities

Platforms often fail to identify brokers or disclose the number of tickets held, undermining market transparency and the ability of venues and regulators to detect fraud or hoarding.

10. Bankruptcy as a Shield Against Accountability

Resellers may use bankruptcy to discharge obligations arising from fraudulent or deceptive conduct. Congress should consider amendments to make such claims nondischargeable, similar to fraud-based exceptions under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

11. Federal RICO Liability for Coordinated BOTS Act Violations

The use of automated ticket-buying tools in coordinated schemes between resellers and bot developers may give rise to federal RICO charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. The following are three plausible RICO predicates when tied to a pattern of violations:

   (a) Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Automated bulk purchases made using false identities or obfuscated IP addresses may constitute wire fraud if they involve misrepresentations in interstate commerce.

   (b) Access Device Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029): Bot schemes often involve unauthorized use of payment cards, CAPTCHA bypass tools, or ticket platform credentials, qualifying as trafficking in access devices.

   (c) Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Bypassing ticket site security measures may amount to unauthorized access under the CFAA, particularly when done for commercial advantage.

These acts, when carried out by a coordinated enterprise, support civil or criminal RICO enforcement, particularly where repeat violations and intent to defraud can be established.