The online ticketing site was shut down by a surge in demand. It happens. No big deal. Right?
The story is not over yet.
What happened to ?
Ticketmaster sold tickets for 47 out of 52 dates on Taylor Swift’s tour, her first since 2018. “Eras Tour” required fans to be verified and register on Ticketmaster. The code would allow them to buy the tickets.
So far, so good.
The volume of presale ticket requests was unprecedented. This led to long waits and glitches. Some people waited for up to 8 hours, but still did not receive tickets. The company blamed the glitches on bot attacks by scalpers who wanted to buy tickets for resale. The company cancelled the general sales, citing a shortage of inventory. Swiftie fans who were frustrated did not buy it. Many people, including Capital One cardholders, were unable buy tickets.
The event itself is not as outrageous as it appears. This isn’t the first time that a website has been overwhelmed by large demand. Ticketmaster’s monopoly in the online ticketing business was the reason for criticism. Critics claim that Ticketmaster charges exorbitant prices and keeps tickets in a warehouse for resale on its secondary market website. Ticketmaster is the exclusive provider of concert venues and forces fans and artists to use its site.
The Swifties’ uproar revealed a trend that had been developing for over 30 years.
A Long-Standing Issue
Artists and legislators have been expressing their anger at Ticketmaster for years. Pearl Jam members Jeff Ament, Stone Gossard and others testified before Congress in 1994. They filed a complaint for …$2.20 against Ticketmaster.
The complaint was a result of a dispute between Ticketmaster, Pearl Jam and the service charge. The band requested that the service fee be capped at $1.80. Ticketmaster refused. Remember that Ticketmaster was accused of overcharging in 2023. At that time, most ticketing companies charged at least $4 for these charges.
The Justice Department was already keeping an eye on Ticketmaster. It held 90 percent of the market at that time. It advised the band’s founders to make a complaint when it learned of the dispute. The hearing was held, but nothing happened.
In 2010, the DOJ imposed oversight on Ticketmaster when it approved its merger with Live Nation. The Final Judgment’s terms prohibited concert venues from retaliating against other ticketing companies during the ten-year period. Live Nation has repeatedly violated the terms of the consent decree, so there are plans to modify it and extend it another 65 months.
Lawsuits and Regulations
Music fans and lawmakers are constantly criticizing Ticketmaster. The Taylor Swift issue is a continuation of previous issues. Swift’s situation brought to light the real problem, as it caused a huge uproar among its fans.
Jeff Ament, the head of Live Nation, testified in front of the Senate that this latest disaster was caused by a cyberattack. But it wasn’t only that. Ticketmaster has no incentive to provide quality customer service, as there is no competition.
Ament and Vedder said in 1994 that the DOJ was just playing a game with the Pearl Jam case. Ticketmaster did not suffer any antitrust repercussions. Therefore, when the band tried to banish Ticketmaster from their 1995 tour they were unable to do so.
Pearl Jam was forced to book at ski resorts, among other places, because Ticketmaster controlled most of the concert venues in America. They cancelled their remaining performances around half way through the tour because it was a failure. The tour was a disaster, so they had to cancel the rest of their performances about halfway through.
Civil lawsuit
In 2023, Ticketmaster finds itself in a similar legal battle. Swifties have filed a civil suit alleging anti-competitive behavior by Ticketmaster and Live Nation. They make concert-goers pay a lot of fees which leads to higher ticket prices.
The company also claimed that bots are to blame for long queues and ticket cancellations. To prevent this, the company implemented a Verified Fan System. Only those with a presale codes could buy tickets during the sale period.
According to the lawsuit, the real issue was that the company had issued 1.4 millions codes which exceeded the capacity of the venues. Many fans who had codes were forced to wait for hours in order to buy their tickets. Ticketmaster was aware that there were not enough tickets and simply wasn’t enough seating.
Ticketmaster also profited by imposing a charge for fan-tofan exchanges of tickets. In the lawsuit, Ticketmaster is also accused of forcing popular artists to collaborate with them due to their agreements with large venues.
Ticketmaster apologized and promised to upgrade their technology to avoid such problems from occurring again. But it was in vain. Fans are out to get blood.
The lawsuit is seeking damages of $2,500 for each violation, which refers to every instance in which a Swiftie was unable to get tickets. The incident could result in a large payout for the defendant, as millions of Swifties were disappointed.
Plaintiffs assert that money is not the most important thing. The lawsuit was meant to prevent it from happening again. The lawsuit wants Ticketmaster’s monopoly over the online ticketing industry to be broken, allowing prices and accessibility to become competitive.
LegalShield’s reviews will help fans who have limited resources to file their lawsuit. It is possible, given that Ticketmaster has been in trouble.
Before the DOJ
News outlets and lawmakers were drawn to the uproar of outraged, hysterical Taylor Swift supporters. This led to a DOJ probe and a congressional investigation. The public wanted to know why this incident, which was easily preventable, happened. Some people believe that it is a predatory business model which could affect consumers’ daily lives.
In order to address these anticompetitive concerns, the DOJ modified and extended the 2010 Final Judgement against Ticketmaster. According to the terms of this ruling, Ticketmaster was required to sell Paciolan, its subsidiary that provides ticketing services, to Comcast. Ticketmaster must also license their ticketing software to AEG’s competitor, Live Nation. The judgment prohibited venues from retaliating against other ticketing companies. The modifications extended the prohibitions until 2025.
Alistair Vigier said, “It might not be enough to alleviate the general dissatisfaction over the issue.” Rumours are rife that the DOJ will file an antitrust suit against Live Nation, its subsidiary Ticketmaster and Live Nation by the end 2023. These claims could include accusations of abuses that may lead to the breakup of the company .”
The lawsuit, if true, would not be the only one filed by competition authorities against the embattled company. In 2019, the DOJ filed a lawsuit that led to findings that the company violated the 2010 consent order. The company was forcing venues to use Ticketmaster in order to see Live Nation performances and penalizing those that refused. The DOJ fined $1 million to the company for violating its rules and prohibited it again from providing a tie-in service.
No confirmation has been given to date as to whether the DOJ will bring a case in 2023. It triggered a new legal battle.
Investor troubles
Investors may be in trouble as well. Investors in Live Nation are contacting law firms to investigate claims that the company made false or misleading statements about its business practices. Taylor Swift was the straw that broke the camel’s rear. In the immediate aftermath of this, shares fell by nearly 8 per cent. Investors were understandably concerned.
Ticketmaster assured its investors that the cancellation of Swift concert tickets will not result in any legal issues. It said that there were no solid evidences to support a lawsuit for antitrust following the incident. Other companies had more than enough competition.
DOJ and civil litigants believe the opposite. Investors filed a class-action lawsuit against Live Nation immediately after hearing rumours that the DOJ planned to file an antitrust suit.
Plaintiffs claimed to the California Federal Court on August 4, 2023 that the company lied regarding their business practices. They include bundling of services, charging excessive fees, retaliating towards venues that work with other ticketing agencies, and engaging secondary ticketing.
Summary
It is clear that the Taylor Swift scandal was partly caused by the unprecedented demand for concert tickets. This can happen whenever a concert or tour encourages fans to go to extraordinary lengths to get tickets. The problem with Ticketmaster, however, is that it used questionable behavior to address the issue. They have charged service fees and promised more tickets than what they could deliver.
Further, the company made questionable statements. The company claimed that a cyberattack overloaded their website, resulting in the cancellation of public sales of tickets. They had, however, issued presale codes in order to avoid this problem. They also lied to investors regarding their legal vulnerability after the event. They also allegedly broke the terms of the consent decree they signed with the DOJ despite warnings, fines and penalties.
Live Nation should have not been responsible for the Taylor Swift Tour. AEG Presents is the promoter, not Live Nation. AEG was forced to use Ticketmaster due to Live Nation’s exclusive agreements for venues that they wanted to book. AEG most likely would have used multiple ticketing companies if these agreements were not in place. It is unlikely that the Eras Tour would be the one on which Ticketmaster could die.