FTC Brings First BOTS Act Case Against Online Ticket Brokers
Time 3 Minute Read

Last week marked a double milestone for the FTC: Rebecca Slaughter assumed the role of Acting Chair, and the agency brought its first enforcement action under the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (“BOTS Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 45c(a)(1).

Enacted in 2016 but somewhat dormant until now, the BOTS Act entitles the FTC to proceed against any person who “circumvent[s] a security measure, access control system, or other technological control or measure on an Internet website or online service that is used by the ticket issuer to enforce posted event ticket limits or to maintain the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing rules.” The statute is meant to address ticket resellers using programs or other pieces of technology—like bots—to instantly buy up hundreds or thousands of tickets to a concert or game as soon as they go on sale, only to sell them again at a massive upcharge.

The three ticket brokers involved in the FTC’s sweep—Concert Specials, Inc. and Steven Ebrani, Just In Time Tickets, Inc. and Evan Kohanian, and Cartisim Corp. and Simon Ebrani—allegedly ran the gamut of strategies that violate the BOTS Act to buy thousands of tickets on Ticketmaster: ticket-buying bots, CAPTCHA bypasses, fake names and addresses, hundreds of different credit cards, and IP address maskers. The proposed consent orders collectively enter civil penalties totaling $36.1 million, much of which will be suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. The orders also require the defendants to submit BOTS Act compliance reports to the FTC, report several different business changes to the Commission, and keep records relating to their online ticket purchasing activity for ten years.

Acting Chair Slaughter issued a concurring statement, calling the cases “a first step in fixing the broken market for tickets to live events.” Although her statement focuses on the “unscrupulous actors” who took advantage of “consumers whose typing fingers were no match for” ticket-buying bots, she found plenty of blame to go around in the ticket market. Her statement refers readers to her prior remarks on the need for rulemaking to address some ticket sellers’ practice of holding back consumer fees until late in the ticket buying process.

In any case, there is a new FTC sheriff in town, and a newly-used FTC enforcement power: This certainly could be a signal that more of the same is to come. With the change in power in DC, retailers would be wise to ensure their compliance with all laws and regulations, whether or not there has been the threat of enforcement in the past.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The FTC has made its position on violations of “Made in USA” standards clear, and Williams-Sonoma received an expensive repeat reminder. On Thursday, April 25, the agency announced a settlement with the home goods retailer, directing it to pay an unprecedented civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 FTC order requiring the company to clearly and accurately identify which products are, in fact, made in the USA. “Made in USA” denotations, as pointed out by the FTC, are more than formality: rather, to label something as “Made in USA,” the business must adhere to specific criteria – namely, that the product’s final assembly or processing, and all significant processing, takes place in the US, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the US.

Time 3 Minute Read

In January 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule that would ban employers from imposing noncompetes on employees. After collecting over 26,000 public comments during the 90-day notice and comment period, the FTC announced a special Open Commission Meeting set to take place on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 to discuss the implications of the proposed rule. While closed to public comment, the public is still able to view the meeting via webcast. 

Time 4 Minute Read

Last week, the FTC sent high profile warning letters to two trade associations, the American Beverage Association (AmeriBev) and the Canadian Sugar Institute, and 12 registered dieticians regarding inadequate disclosures in the dieticians’ social media posts. While the specific influencer posts varied across dietician, they all related to the safety of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, and other messaging regarding the benefits of consuming sugar-containing products. Further, some dieticians even went so far as to call the World Health Organization’s warnings regarding aspartame and artificial sweeteners as based on “low-quality science” and “clickbait” evidence. While some of the dieticians included words like “#Ad” or “Sponsored” in their posts, according to the FTC most failed to provide obvious disclosures informing consumers that they were watching an ad that had been paid for by an industry association. The FTC’s warnings alleged that inconspicuous messaging surrounding these partnership deals led to consumer confusion regarding who ultimately was responsible for the influencers’ nutrition messaging. And according to the FTC, the fact that these influencers are registered dieticians increases the public’s confidence in the information they disperse, thus heightening the need for them to be clear about their partnership affiliations.

Time 2 Minute Read

The FTC took action last week against a group of New England-based clothing accessories companies for making false claims that certain of its products were “Made in USA.”

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page