The Swifties are dressing for revenge. After Ticketmaster royally screwed up the presale for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, the consequences started rolling in: An investigation by the Department of Justice. A Congressional hearing. And now a lawsuit from angry fans. It’s a three-pronged assault!
Per The Hollywood Reporter, more than two dozen fans filed a complaint in L.A. County Superior Court against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation, “asserting claims including breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, fraud, antitrust violations and unfair competition.”
Attorney Dennis B. Hill lays out the whole scheme thusly: “Ticketmaster has made agreements with the stadiums in every location of the Taylor Swift tour, and these stadiums are the only venues able to hold large concerts. Because no other venue can hold half as many people as the stadiums and venues working through Ticketmaster, Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to work through Ticketmaster. And because artists like Taylor Swift have to go through Ticketmaster, their fans do as well.” The suit (which can be read here) boldly states, “Ticketmaster is a monopoly that is only interested in taking every dollar it can from a captive public.”
The trouble began with the “Verified Fan” presale, in which “Ticketmaster intentionally and purposefully mislead ticket purchasers by allowing scalpers and bots access to TaylorSwiftTix presale,” per the complaint. Even beyond the bots, the suit argues that the service knowingly released too many codes to fans despite not having “enough seats to meet the demand this number of codes would require.”
“Millions of fans waited up to eight hours and were unable to purchase tickets as a result of insufficient ticket releases,” the filing reads. “Ticketmaster intentionally provided codes when it could not satisfy demands.”
Per CNN, the lawsuit is seeking a civil fine of $2,500 per violation, which could add up to a pretty penny depending on things shake out. Live Nation, for its part, “takes its responsibilities under the antitrust laws seriously and does not engage in behaviors that could justify antitrust litigation, let alone orders that would require it to alter fundamental business practices,” per a statement on its website last month.