Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation are facing an unprecedented wave of legal and regulatory scrutiny in Canada, as consumer advocates and frustrated fans push for sweeping changes in the live event ticketing industry. On January 14, 2026, the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC), a national consumer advocacy group, filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal seeking permission to sue Ticketmaster and Live Nation. Their objective: to break up the companies, void restrictive contracts with artists and venues, and secure compensation for Canadian consumers, artists, and venues. The move signals a dramatic escalation in the battle over the future of concert ticketing in Canada—a fight that echoes across borders and industries.
According to Billboard Canada, the CCC’s claim alleges that Live Nation leverages its position as a dominant force in the live music industry to pressure artists and venues into accepting exclusive promotion, ticketing, and radius clauses—terms that critics say stifle competition and drive up costs for everyone but Live Nation and its partners. If artists or venues refuse these terms, they risk losing access to Live Nation’s vast network of venues and touring connections, a threat that can be devastating in a highly consolidated market.
“Going to see your favourite musician perform live used to be something that ordinary Canadians could easily afford to do. Now it’s become a luxury item for many because of the stranglehold Live Nation and Ticketmaster have,” said Don Mercer, president of the CCC and a former deputy commissioner of the Competition Bureau, in a public statement reported by Billboard Canada. He added, “Canadian consumers have had enough.”
The CCC’s application is the first of its kind under new additions to the Canadian Competition Act, which now allow consumer groups—not just direct business competitors or the Commissioner of Competition—to challenge anti-competitive practices before the tribunal. If the Tribunal grants leave for the case to proceed, it would mark the first time a consumer-led group has sought such a structural remedy: the forced divestiture of Ticketmaster from Live Nation. The group is also seeking to void restrictive contract terms and obtain “substantial compensation” for those affected by what it describes as monopolistic behavior.
This legal push comes at a moment of mounting frustration for fans and industry players alike. Just a week earlier, on January 7, 2026, Quebec Superior Court Justice Eleni Yiannakis authorized a class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster to proceed to trial. The suit, first filed in August 2024 by a Montreal law firm and led by immigration lawyer Felipe Morales, claims Ticketmaster’s pricing model is “excessive, unreasonable, abusive, and disproportionate,” in violation of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act and Civil Code, as reported by Music Business Worldwide.
The class action alleges that Ticketmaster’s service fees fluctuate based on ticket prices rather than the actual services provided, resulting in fees that are often out of step with what consumers receive. “It’s reasonable to infer that the Main Class and the Consumer Class are composed of thousands of persons and that the Plaintiff is certainly not the only person to have suffered damages caused by the Defendants’ fault in this matter,” the complaint argues.
Ticketmaster, for its part, has defended its practices, stating that its share of service fees is typically around 5-7% of the total ticket price. “We believe the most fair and transparent approach is showing fans the total cost upfront, which we’ve done in Canada since 2018,” a Ticketmaster spokesperson told Billboard Canada. The company maintains that its fees cover essential costs such as staff and anti-fraud technology, and that service fees are split between venues and Ticketmaster.
But the legal pressure is not confined to Canada. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and seven states filed a lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation in September 2025, accusing the companies of illegal ticket resale tactics and “tacitly coordinating” with resellers. That case was dismissed earlier this month, with Ticketmaster calling the class action an “egregious overreach.” Nonetheless, the cross-border scrutiny underscores a growing impatience with the status quo in live event ticketing.
Critics of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger, which dates back to 2010, argue that the vertically integrated company wields too much power as a gatekeeper—controlling promotion, venues, and ticketing all under one roof. The CCC’s application frames the requested remedy as a way to increase competition in primary ticketing by removing this integration. If successful, a forced split could open up bids for arena and stadium contracts, potentially lowering barriers for rival ticketing platforms to win major venue deals and giving artists and promoters more negotiating leverage.
Yet not everyone is convinced that breaking up the two giants would lead to lower ticket prices or a better experience for fans. As reported by A Journal of Musical Things, some industry observers warn that concert ticket prices are ultimately set by artists and their management, not Ticketmaster. While Ticketmaster handles service fees and the complex infrastructure required for secure online ticketing, the face value of tickets is determined by the costs of staging a tour and the revenue targets of the artists themselves. “If anyone thinks breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster will result in lower concert ticket prices be trippin’,” the article notes wryly, pointing out that new competitors would face steep costs to match Ticketmaster’s robust technology and infrastructure.
There’s also concern that introducing multiple ticketing providers could actually increase operational complexity and costs for both fans and event organizers. With more companies in the mix, questions arise about who gets access to the best tickets, how inventory is managed, and whether consumers will face even more confusion or higher prices due to increased competition for contracts. “This will do absolutely nothing to solve the immutable laws of supply and demand,” the commentary continues, suggesting that issues like scalping and third-party resale may persist—or even worsen—if the market fragments.
For now, the immediate impact for Canadian concertgoers is limited. Ticketmaster continues to list events, set service fees, and manage ticket transfers and resale under its existing contracts. But the legal landscape is shifting. If the Tribunal grants leave for the CCC’s case to proceed, expect a lengthy process involving discovery, expert testimony, and potentially appeals. In Quebec, the class action will move forward with defining the consumer class and refining claims, possibly leading to trial or settlement talks.
Industry insiders are watching closely. Promoters may begin exploring multi-provider strategies, while rival ticketing platforms eye new opportunities. Artists and venues could see improved negotiating power, but also face new headaches in coordinating ticket sales across multiple platforms. And for fans—well, they’re hoping for clearer pricing, fairer fees, and maybe, just maybe, a shot at seeing their favorite artists without breaking the bank.
The direction of travel is clear: louder calls for up-front all-in pricing, stronger fee disclosures, and renewed debate over whether one company should control so many links in the live-events chain. The outcomes won’t be immediate, but Canada’s ticketing industry—and its millions of music lovers—are poised for a reckoning.
