Who’s Really Fighting for Fans? A Closer Look at the DOJ/FTC Ticketing Consultation

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.”

EO 2025-05906Download

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.

by Trichordist

@RickBeato on AI Artists

Is it at thing or is it disco? Our fave Rick Beato has a cautionary tale in this must watch video: AI can mimic but not truly create art. As generative tools get more prevalent, he urges thoughtful curation, artist-centered policies, and an emphasis on emotionally rich, human-driven creativity–also known as creativity. h/t Your Morning Coffee our favorite podcast.

by Trichordist Editor

United for Artists’ Rights: Amicus Briefs Filed in Vetter v. Resnik Support Global Copyright Termination for Songwriters and Authors: Brief by Music Artists Coalition, Black Music Action Coalition, Artists Rights Alliance, Songwriters Of North America, and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists

In Vetter v. Resnik, songwriter Cyril Vetter won his trial case in Baton Rouge allowing him to recover worldwide rights in his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” after serving his 35 year termination notice on his former publisher, Resnik Music Group. The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and currently is weighing whether U.S. copyright termination rights include “foreign” territories—a question that strikes at the heart of artists’ ability to reclaim their work worldwide (whatever “foreign” means).

Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel explains the case if you need an explainer:

An astonishing number of friend of the court briefs were filed by many songwriter groups. We’re going to post them all and today’s brief is by Music Artists Coalition, Black Music Action Coalition, Artists Rights Alliance, Songwriters Of North America, And Screen Actors Guild-American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists–that’s right, the SAG-AFTRA union is with us.

We believe the answer must be yes. Congress gave creators and their heirs the right a “second bite at the apple” to regain control of their work after decades, and that promise means little if global rights are excluded. The outcome of this case could either reaffirm that promise—or open the door for multinational publishers to sidestep it entirely.

That’s why we’re sharing friend of the court briefs from across the creative communities. Each one brings a different perspective—but all defend the principle that artists deserve a real, global right to take back what’s theirs, because as Chris said, Congress did not give authors a second bite at half the apple.

Read the latest amicus brief below, watch this space for more.

MAC, et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees_Vetter v. Resnick_Final_06.20.25Download
by Trichordist

United for Artists’ Rights: Amicus Briefs Filed in Vetter v. Resnik Support Global Copyright Termination for Songwriters and Authors: The Authors Guild, Inc., Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Novelists, Inc., Romance Writers Of America, Inc., Society Of Composers & Lyricists, Inc. and Songwriters Guild Of America, Inc.

In Vetter v. Resnik, songwriter Cyril Vetter won his trial case in Baton Rouge allowing him to recover worldwide rights in his song “Double Shot of My Baby’s Love” after serving his 35 year termination notice on his former publisher, Resnik Music Group. The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and currently is weighing whether U.S. copyright termination rights include “foreign” territories—a question that strikes at the heart of artists’ ability to reclaim their work worldwide (whatever “foreign” means).

Cyril’s attorney Tim Kappel explains the case if you need an explainer:

An astonishing number of friend of the court briefs were filed by many songwriter groups. We’re going to post them all and today’s brief is by The Authors Guild, Inc., Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Novelists, Inc., Romance Writers Of America, Inc., Society Of Composers & Lyricists, Inc. and Songwriters Guild Of America, Inc.

We believe the answer must be yes. Congress gave creators and their heirs the right to regain control of their work after decades, and that promise means little if global rights are excluded. The outcome of this case could either reaffirm that promise—or open the door for multinational publishers to sidestep it entirely.

That’s why we’re sharing friend of the court briefs from across the creative communities. Each one brings a different perspective—but all defend the principle that artists deserve a real, global right to take back what’s theirs, because as Chris said Congress did not give authors a second bite at half the apple.

Read the latest amicus brief below.

Authors Guild et al Amicus BriefDownload
by thetrichordist

Senator Cruz Joins the States on AI Safe Harbor Collapse— And the Moratorium Quietly Slinks Away

Silicon Valley Loses Bigly

In a symbolic vote that spoke volumes, the U.S. Senate decisively voted 99–1 to strike the toxic AI safe harbor moratorium from the vote-a-rama for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1) according to the AP. Senator Ted Cruz, who had previously actively supported the measure, actually joined the bipartisan chorus in stripping it — an acknowledgment that the proposal had become politically radioactive.

To recap, the AI moratorium would have barred states from regulating artificial intelligence for up to 10 years, tying access to broadband and infrastructure funds to compliance. It triggered an immediate backlash: Republican governors, state attorneys general, parents’ groups, civil liberties organizations, and even independent artists condemned it as a blatant handout to Big Tech with yet another rent-seeking safe harbor.

Marsha Blackburn and Maria Cantwell to the Rescue

Credit where it’s due: Senator Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) was the linchpin in the Senate, working across the aisle with Sen. Maria Cantwell to introduce the amendment that finally killed the provision. Blackburn’s credibility with conservative and tech-wary voters gave other Republicans room to move — and once the tide turned, it became a rout. Her leadership was key to sending the signal to her Republican colleagues–including Senator Cruz–that this wasn’t a hill to die on.

Top Cover from President Trump?

But stripping the moratorium wasn’t just a Senate rebellion. This kind of reversal in must-pass, triple whip legislation doesn’t happen without top cover from the White House, and in all likelihood, Donald Trump himself. The provision was never a “last stand” issue in the art of the deal. Trump can plausibly say he gave industry players like Masayoshi Son, Meta, and Google a shot, but the resistance from the states made it politically untenable. It was frankly a poorly handled provision from the start, and there’s little evidence Trump was ever personally invested in it. He certainly didn’t make any public statements about it at all, which is why I always felt it was such an improbable deal point that it was always intended as a bargaining chip whether the staff knew it or not.

One thing is for damn sure–it ain’t coming back in the House which is another way you know you can stick a fork in it despite the churlish shillery types who are sulking off the pitch.

One final note on the process: it’s unfortunate that the Senate Parliamentarian made such a questionable call when she let the AI moratorium survive the Byrd Bath, despite it being so obviously not germane to reconciliation. The provision never should have made it this far in the first place — but oh well. Fortunately, the Senate stepped in and did what the process should have done from the outset.

Now what?

It ain’t over til it’s over. The battle with Silicon Valley may be over on this issue today, but that’s not to say the war is over. The AI moratorium may reappear, reshaped and rebranded, in future bills. But its defeat in the Senate is important. It proves that state-level resistance can still shape federal tech policy, even when it’s buried in omnibus legislation and wrapped in national security rhetoric.

Cruz’s shift wasn’t a betrayal of party leadership — it was a recognition that even in Washington, federalism still matters. And this time, the states — and our champion Marsha — held the line. 

Brava, madam. Well played.

This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy

by Trichordist Editor

Hey Budweiser, You Give Beer a Bad Name

In a world where zero royalties becomes a brag, and one second of music is one second too far.

Let me set the stage: Cannes Lions is the annual eurotrash…to coin a phrase…circular self-congratulatory hype fest at which the biggest brands and ad agencies in the world if not the Solar System spend unreal amounts of money telling each other how wonderful they are. Kind of like HITS Magazine goes to Cannes but with a real budget. And of course the world’s biggest ad platform–guess who–has a major presence there among the bling and yachts of the elites tied up in Yachtville by the Sea. And of course they give each other prizes, and long-time readers know how much we love a good prize, Nyan Cat wise.

Enter the King of Swill, the mind-numbingly stupid Budweiser marketing department. Or as they say in Cannes, Le roi de la bibine.

Credit where it’s due: British Bud-hater and our friend Chris Cooke at CMU flagged this jaw-dropper from Cannes Lions, where Budweiser took home the Grand Prix for its “One‑Second Ad” campaign—a series of ultra-short TikTok clips that featured the one second of hooks from iconic songs. The gimmick? Tease the audience just long enough to trigger nostalgia, then let the internet do the rest. The beer is offensive enough to any right-thinking Englishman, but the theft? Ooh la la.

Cannes Clown

Budweiser’s award-winning brag? “Zero ads were skipped. $0 spent on music right$.” Yes, that’s correct–“right$”.

That quote should hang in a museum of creative disinformation.

There’s an old copyright myth known as the “7‑second rule”—the idea that using a short snippet of a song (usually under 7 seconds) doesn’t require a license. It’s pure urban legend. No court has ever upheld such a rule, but it sticks around because music users desperately want it to be true. Budweiser didn’t just flirt with the myth—it took the myth on a date to Short Attention Span Theater, built an ad campaign around it, and walked away with the biggest prize in advertising to the cheers of Googlers everywhere.

When Theft from artists Becomes a Business Model–again

But maybe this kind of stunt shouldn’t come as a surprise. When the richest corporations in commercial history are openly scraping, mimicking, and monetizing millions of copyrighted works to train AI models—without permission and without payment—and so far getting away with it, it sends a signal. A signal that says: “This isn’t theft, it’s innovation.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. Give them a prize.

So of course Budweiser’s corporate brethren start thinking: “Me too.”

As Austin songwriter Guy Forsyth wrote in Long Long Time, “Americans are freedom-loving people, and nothing says freedom like getting away with it.” That lyric, in this context, resonates like a manifesto for scumbags.

The Immorality of Virality

For artists and the musicians and vocalists who created the value that Budweiser is extracting, the campaign’s success is a masterclass in bad precedent. It’s one thing to misunderstand copyright; it’s another to market that misunderstanding as a feature. When global brands publicly celebrate not paying for music–in Cannes, of all places—the very tone-deaf foundation of their ad’s emotional resonance sends a corrosive signal to the entire creative economy. And, frankly, to fans.

Oops!… I Did It Again, bragged Budweiser, proudly skipping royalties like it’s Free Fallin’, hoping no one notices they’re just Smooth Criminals playing Cheap Thrills with other people’s work. It’s not Without Me—it’s without paying anyone—because apparently Money for Nothing is still the vibe, and The Sound of Silence is what they expect from artists they’ve ghosted.

Because make no mistake: even one second of a recording can be legally actionable particularly when the intentional infringing conspiracy gets a freaking award for doing it. That’s not just law—it’s basic respect, which is kind of the same thing. Which makes Budweiser’s campaign less of a legal grey area and more of a cultural red flag with a bunch of zeros. Meaning the ultimate jury award from a real jury, not a Cannes jury.

This is the immorality of virality: weaponizing cultural shorthand to score branding points, while erasing the very artists who make those moments recognizable. When the applause dies down in Yachtville, what’s left is a case study in how to win by stealing — not creating.

by theinvisiblestagehand

A New Twist in the AM Radio Debate: Why Tying AM Mandates to AMFA Is a Game-Changer #IRespectMusic

The latest twist in the long-running AM radio saga comes from a new alliance: cars and music. Automaker trade groups Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Consumer Technology Association, and Zero Emission Transportation Association are shoulder to shoulder with the musicFIRST Coalition and SoundExchange in urging Congress to link the “AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act” with the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA). If we’re going to mandate AM radios be placed in new cars then music played on those radios should pay the people who made that music. It’s unfair and fundamentally inconsistent to require one without the other, so broadcasters should pay artists.

What Is the American Music Fairness Act?

If you haven’t run across it yet, AMFA is bipartisan legislation sponsored by our champion Senator Marsha Blackburn in the Senate and our long-time ally Rep. Darrell Issa in the House of Representatives that would finally require AM/FM radio stations to pay performance royalties to recording artists and performers when their recordings are played over the air. Currently, the U.S. remains the only democracy that allows terrestrial radio to make billions from music without compensating performers.

Why Artists Get Left Out

As incredible as it may seem, under U.S. copyright law, terrestrial radio must pay songwriters and publishers—but not performers or sound recording rights holders. That means backup singers, session musicians, and producers receive zero compensation, even when their work drives–literally–billions in broadcast revenue. This is what allows the National Association of Broadcasters shillery to claim “we pay for music” and then try to pit artists against songwriters. That dog won’t hunt, but that never stops them from trying.

The musicFIRST Coalition, including SoundExchange and tons of artists and creators, has been front and center pushing Congress to close this loophole for years and we have been right there with them along with our friend Blake Morgan and his #IRespectMusic campaign.

 

“Mandating AM radio without addressing the performance royalty issue would perpetuate an inequity that denies hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to countless recording artists every year. Congress should not pass a mandate for radio without ensuring appropriate royalties for artists… They deserve to have their hard work respected and valued with fair compensation — like they receive in every other industrialized country.”
—SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe

The Math on AMFA

  • U.S. radio plays over 240 million songs annually without compensating performers
  • The music industry could gain an estimated $200–300 million annually if Americans were paid for domestic and foreign broadcast plays 
  • Aligns U.S. copyright with global norms—terrestrial radio already pays performers in virtually every other developed nation.

What is to be done

If Congress is going to mandate AM radio in every car, it can’t ignore the rights of the very artists who create the content. By demanding performance royalties through AMFA, we can preserve public safety benefits while ensuring creators are paid for their work. This is a rare chance for Congress to get it right—fairness and infrastructure can go hand-in-hand.

If you believe artists deserve fairness when their music plays on the radio, now is the time to act:

  1. Sign the letter to Congress. The musicFIRST Action Center has made it easy—just a few clicks to add your name. 
  2. Call your Senator and Representative and tell them to support both:
    • American Music Fairness Act (H.R. 861 / S. 326)
    • AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act—(S. 315 / H.R. 979–but only inclusive of performance royalties
  3. Spread the word on social media with tags like #PassAMFA, #FairPayForArtists, #IRespectMusic

by Trichordist Editor

@Unite4Copyright: Say “No” to Unlicensed AI Training

The biggest of Big Tech are scraping everything they can snarf down to train their AI–that means your Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, websites, Reddit, the works. Congress has to stop this–if. you are as freaked out about this as we are, join in the Copyright Alliance letter campaign here. It just takes a minute to send a personalized letter to Congress and the White House urging policymakers to protect creators’ rights and ensure fair compensation in the AI era.

by Trichordist