A bipartisan op-ed argues the Ticketmaster monopoly ruling should be a starting point for federal and state action, as lawmakers scrutinize the DOJ settlement and consumer advocates press for open ticket transferability.

A bipartisan pair of former state attorneys general is urging lawmakers and state enforcers to treat the recent Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly verdict not as the end of the ticketing reform fight, but as a springboard for stronger consumer protections.

Writing in The Hill, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, and former Maine Attorney General Drew Ketterer, a Democrat, argued that the verdict gives states and Congress leverage to pursue reforms that go beyond damages or delayed court remedies. Their prescription includes passage of the TICKET Act, protections for consumers’ ability to transfer and resell tickets on the platform of their choice, and settlement terms that open the ticketing market to more competition.

The op-ed comes as the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case has entered a sprawling post-verdict phase, with state plaintiffs seeking remedies after a jury found the company liable for monopolization while the federal court separately reviews the Trump administration’s settlement with the company under the Tunney Act.

That settlement drama was the focus of a Monday bicameral forum led by Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, where lawmakers, state enforcers, independent venue operators, artists, and antitrust experts argued that the jury verdict should be followed by structural changes to Live Nation’s business rather than a narrow conduct settlement.

RELATED: Lawmakers, Witnesses Dissect “Corrupt” Live Nation Settlement at Hearing; Press for Breakup

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office remained in the case after DOJ agreed to settle, told the forum that behavioral remedies had proven inadequate and that the states would seek structural relief. TicketNews previously reported that Bonta said potential remedies could include divestiture of Ticketmaster, a broader breakup of Live Nation’s vertically integrated business, or separation of the company’s venue and artist-management operations.

The forum underscored a key point for ticketing policy: there is now visible appetite at the federal level not only for transparency legislation, but also for tougher scrutiny of antitrust settlements that leave dominant market structures intact.

The TICKET Act remains the most immediate legislative vehicle. The bill passed the House last year by a 409-15 vote and is now on the Senate calendar. It would require ticket sellers and resale marketplaces to display the total ticket price at the beginning of the purchasing process, prohibit speculative ticket sales by sellers who do not have possession of the tickets, require refunds for canceled or significantly postponed events, and give the Federal Trade Commission enforcement authority.

Cuccinelli and Ketterer argued that those transparency provisions are important, but insufficient. In their view, lawmakers and state plaintiffs should also address the structural question at the center of the Live Nation/Ticketmaster fight: whether consumers actually control the tickets they purchase, or whether the primary seller and event rights-holder can dictate where, when, and whether those tickets can be transferred or resold.

That question is an essential one for true consumer choice in ticketing and ticket resale. Ticketmaster’s SafeTix system, the company’s mobile-only rotating-barcode technology, has been promoted by the company as an anti-fraud tool, but the truth is that it has largely served the purpose of creating a walled garden – where rights holders and Ticketmaster have ultimate control over a ticket and its use after purchase.

The DOJ’s under President Biden illustrated this point in its initial amended complaint in the lawsuit that eventually led to the guitly verdict last month. It argued that the technology was designed to allow Ticketmaster protect its dominant primary-ticketing position, strengthen its resale position, and make it more difficult for fans to use rival resale platforms.

RELATED: Ticketmaster’s SafeTix System Takes Central Role in DOJ’s Monopoly Lawsuit

TicketNews has reported for years that dynamic barcodes and other restricted-transfer systems can effectively lock fans into the ticketing platform chosen by the original seller. Once a ticket is confined inside a proprietary app, consumers may be able to use, transfer, or resell it only under the rules set by that platform.

For consumer advocates, that makes transferability a core competition issue rather than a secondary feature of ticketing convenience. A ticket that cannot be freely transferred is less like property purchased by a fan and more like conditional access controlled by the seller, enabling the restriction of use, sale, resale, or transfer at their discretion.

That distinction is especially important as Live Nation has simultaneously supported resale price caps. The company has argued that caps would address fan frustration over high secondary-market prices, speculative listings, and bot-driven purchasing. Critics counter that resale caps, if imposed without equivalent limits on primary-market pricing, dynamic pricing, platinum pricing, holdbacks, and transfer restrictions, could eliminate resale competition while leaving Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s primary-market power intact.

That concern was also at the center of a January Senate Commerce hearing, where lawmakers pressed Live Nation over whether resale restrictions and price caps could leave fans with fewer options. As TicketNews reported then, a cap that limits what consumers can recover on resale, while leaving primary-market prices unrestricted, can box fans into a market controlled by the same company that sold them the ticket in the first place.

Consumer-choice groups have also argued that resale competition can benefit fans when tickets fall below face value. A 2025 report found that resale markets saved fans hundreds of millions of dollars in 2024, while polling cited in the report found broad public support for the right to resell or give away tickets after purchase.

The result is a policy fight with several overlapping tracks. Congress is weighing the TICKET Act and related antitrust-settlement reforms. The court is reviewing the DOJ settlement under the Tunney Act. State plaintiffs are seeking remedies after winning at trial. And consumer advocates are pressing lawmakers to make sure that reform does not stop at all-in pricing, but also includes free transferability and genuine resale competition.

RELATED: Live Nation Seeks to Pause Breakup Fight Until After Tunney Act Settlement Review

Live Nation has rejected the monopoly framing and has argued that breaking up the company would not solve the underlying causes of high ticket prices, which it attributes largely to demand, artist pricing decisions, and broader industry dynamics. The company has also said it supports certain ticketing reforms, including resale-focused changes, while continuing to challenge the verdict and the push for structural remedies.

But the Cuccinelli-Ketterer op-ed reflects a growing view among critics of the company that the verdict has changed the political and legal posture of the debate. If Live Nation/Ticketmaster has already been found liable for monopolization, they argue, the next question is not whether ticketing reform is warranted, but what kind of reform will actually reduce the company’s control over fans, venues, artists, and rival marketplaces.

That is where the TICKET Act and transferability protections intersect. All-in pricing would make ticket costs clearer. Refund guarantees would give consumers baseline protections when events are canceled or postponed. But open transferability would address a different problem: whether fans can choose where to sell, give away, or otherwise transfer the tickets they already bought.

The monopoly verdict opened the door to that broader conversation. The fight now is over whether lawmakers and courts walk through it.