Ticketmaster works for the venue, not the event. If a band wants to play in Boston's TD Garden, they must sell their tickets through TicketMaster. For the most part, ticket revenue goes to the event. Fees go to the venue. It's in the best interest of TM and the venue to charge more.
StubHub rakes from both sides of the secondary ticket market just because they can.
(plug: I'm trying to change this, slowly but surely, with my own project: http://www.boxrowseat.com)
I'd say it's because Ticketmaster sells a luxury good. People who don't like their fees can just stop paying them, and people who really want to see shows will pay them. Banks and phones, on the other hand, are more or less essentials which everyone has to deal with.
My guess is because it isn't a day to day impact for most people. With Verizon, BOFA,and Netflix, it was a monthly charge for most people. People who use TicketMaster arn't billed monthly so a one time charge isn't that big of a deal. Also what ever that fee is is nothing compared to the $5 tax on nachos.
Yes--although according to the article, "Ticketmaster can continue to profit off transactions — they just have to say they're doing so on their website."
Plus, as far as I understand it the settlement is a coupon award, meaning you get $1.50 back the next time you buy from Ticketmaster. So if you decided they were in fact deceptive and you don't want to give them your business again (difficult if you ever want to see another concert, I agree), you get nothing.
I'm not an expert on class action lawsuits but this whole thing seemed like it didn't benefit the consumer much, but was worth multi-millions for the firm bringing the suit.
Possibly because they implemented them before social media provided such a quick backlash.
We can all get upset about Verizon right now and spread the word very quickly in response to the recently announced change. It's much harder to foment a spike of reaction about ongoing bullshit fees at Ticketmaster.
