Ticketmaster TradeDesk Scalping Scheme

DEFENDANT NAME: Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment Inc.
STOCK SYMBOL:
CASE NUMBER: 3:18-cv-05987
CASE NAME:
COURT: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
PRACTICE AREA: Consumer Rights
STATUS: Active
CLASS PERIOD:
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE:
DATE FILED: 09/28/18
COURT LOCATION:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
CONTACT:

Did you purchase secondary market tickets through one of Ticketmaster’s “fan-to-fan” resale sites or from TicketsNow?

Reports indicate that Ticketmaster accepts kickbacks by secretly facilitating ticket sales through scalpers at a higher cost, collecting profits from both the original and secondary sales of tickets.

You may have paid too much. Fill out the form to find out your rights to potential compensation »


Ticketmaster has actually facilitated the sale of tickets to the secondary market in order to receive a second cut on each ticket—one that is even more than the cut Ticketmaster received on the original ticket sale.

"Fan-to-fan" sites involved include:

  • TicketExchangeByTicketmaster.com
  • Ticketmaster.com/verified
  • TicketsNow.com

ABOUT THE SCALPING SCHEME

According to media reports, Ticketmaster recently introduced the TradeDesk “professional reseller program,” an online inventory-management application allowing scalpers to purchase and resell large quantities of tickets on Ticketmaster’s website.

The TradeDesk platform allows Ticketmaster to cash in twice on the sale of tickets. For example, “if Ticketmaster collects $25.75 on a $209.50 ticket on the initial sale, when the owner posts it for resale for $400 on the site, the company stands to collect an additional $76 on the same ticket.”1

YOUR CONSUMER RIGHTS

Our firm hopes to achieve relief for the many Ticketmaster customers who purchased inflated resale tickets through TradeDesk and an injunction forcing LiveNation to end its secret scalping scheme. Hagens Berman believes that those who unknowingly paid high prices for scalped tickets facilitated by Ticketmaster deserve compensation for the wrongdoing and profiteering of this corporation.

Hagens Berman believes that the nation's largest corporations have a duty to tell consumers the truth.

TOP CONSUMER RIGHTS FIRM

Hagens Berman is one of the most successful consumer litigation law firms in the U.S. and has achieved more than $260 billion in settlements for consumers in lawsuits against technology corporations, automakers, big banks and others. Hagens Berman won a suit against Apple and various publishing companies in 2016 that settled for a total $560 million on behalf of purchasers of e-books who had been forced to pay artificially high prices due to Apple and the publishing companies' price-fixing. Your claim will be handled by experts in consumer law.

NO COST TO YOU

There is no cost or fee whatsoever involved in joining this investigation. In the event Hagens Berman or any other firm obtains a settlement that provides benefits to class members, the court will decide a reasonable fee to be awarded to the class' legal team. In no case will any class member ever be asked to pay any out-of-pocket sum.

1 http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-ticketmaster-scalpers-20180920-story.html.


Hagens Berman purchases advertisements on search engines, social media sites and other websites. Transmission of the information contained or available through this website is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you seek legal advice or representation by Hagens Berman, you must first enter a formal agreement. All information contained in any transmission is confidential and Hagens Berman agrees to protect information against unauthorized use, publication or disclosure. This site is regulated by the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.

Back to all cases

Contact Us:

Hagens Berman is a national law firm that purchases ads. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship with the firm, but we will make our best effort to keep your information confidential.

 

Case videos

Case Gallery

Case Timeline

12/31/69: