What is the current status of the FTC's BOTS Act lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster?

Current Legal Status

The FTC lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster remains ongoing as of May 2026. Live Nation filed a motion to dismiss, which the FTC opposes. On May 1, 2026, Live Nation responded to the FTC's attempt to use the Key Investment Group court ruling as leverage, arguing the decision does not support the FTC's position and instead bolsters Live Nation's dismissal arguments.

The KIG Ruling and Its Implications

On April 29, 2026, a Maryland federal judge ruled against ticket broker Key Investment Group's motion to dismiss the FTC's lawsuit. The judge determined that the BOTS Act 'unambiguously applies to any person and not just to bots.' Live Nation seized on this ruling, contending it actually strengthens its argument for dismissal rather than supporting the FTC's case. Live Nation emphasized that the KIG decision involved subparagraph (A) violations concerning circumvention of technological controls, whereas the Live Nation case is filed under subparagraph (B), which concerns the subsequent resale of tickets.

Live Nation's Legal Arguments

Live Nation argues it operates as a protected party under the BOTS Act, not a violator. The company contends that the BOTS Act was enacted to support platforms like Ticketmaster against scalpers, not to impose liability on the platforms whose controls are being circumvented. Live Nation's lawyers also note that the KIG complaint contained detailed allegations of circumvention tactics—including use of over 13,000 accounts and thousands of fictitious names—whereas the FTC's complaint against Live Nation fails to connect specific resale listings to circumvention of particular technological controls.

FTC's Use of the KIG Decision

On April 30, 2026, the FTC filed a notice of supplemental authority citing the KIG court order, claiming it supports the FTC's opposition to Live Nation's motion to dismiss. The FTC argued that the judge's ruling further validates its position in the Live Nation case. However, Live Nation disputed this characterization, asserting that the statutory arguments in KIG are fundamentally different from those in the Live Nation case.