Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Red Sox Sued Over Junk Fees, Misleading Seat Prices

A lawsuit was filed in January by some Boston Red Sox ticket buyers alleging that the ball club for a number of years advertised misleading low prices for tickets but then jacked up the total price by adding various junk fees at the end of the online purchasing transaction.

In the suit [see complaint] the consumers’ lawyers alleged:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The Red Sox’s false advertising centers on their use of drip pricing and junk fees. Specifically, the Red Sox would advertise illusorily low prices for their tickets. When purchasers attempted to buy those tickets, however, the Red Sox would add mandatory fees at the last minute, such as “Per-Ticket Fees” and “Order Fees,” that could increase the cost of a purchase by as much as 150%.

After ticket buyers saw the advertised price for the tickets they wanted and added them to their cart, a countdown clock popped up giving them five minutes to complete the transaction. Only as buyers got close to finalizing their purchase were “per-ticket fees” and “order fees” added to their bill which could substantially increase the ticket price, particularly on cheaper tickets.

For example, one of the ticket buyers in the case was purchasing a $21 ticket, but when the junk fees were added on, the total came to $31.50.

The lawsuit focuses on the 2022 to 2024 baseball seasons. After that state and federal regulations kicked in requiring the complete pricing of event tickets upfront.

In particular the FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees went into effect in May 2025, requiring businesses that sell live-event tickets and short-term lodging to disclose the total price upfront.

Similarly, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office issued new junk fee regulations in September 2025 requiring that the initial price shown to consumers be the total price except for shipping and government taxes.

Like Ticketmaster which was sued for similar alleged deceptive practices and subsequently started advertising complete prices upfront, the Boston Red Sox now do the same thing:

Red Sox ticket purchase 2026

You now see the total price including fees when first searching for tickets.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Sometimes Good News Is Buried in the Fine Print

Last year, a UK-based nonprofit tax policy organization decided to protest a legal requirement that it had to have a posted privacy policy. Its director, Dan Neidle, wanted to make the point that no one reads these things so what was the point of even having one.

So, he launched his personal protest in February 2024 by inserting an offer of a free bottle of wine into his privacy policy:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Privacy policy - free wine

It took three months before anyone noticed the free wine offer and claimed it.

After the wine was claimed, Neidle commented, “Every tiny coffee shop has to have a privacy policy on their website, it’s crazy. It’s money that’s being wasted.”

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Sometimes CBS News Interviews Are Really Commercials

When you watch a news broadcast, you expect to see bonafide news stories, interviews, and produced pieces and not infomercials masquerading as any of those types of segments.

David B. was appalled recently while watching CBS Mornings – that network’s version of the Today Show and GMA. They aired a live interview with a personal finance expert who quickly started peddling a high-yield savings account in a joint promotion by Verizon and an online bank you never heard of. And if that wasn’t enough, she then touted a Verizon package deal on streaming services and Verizon’s new three-year price guarantee.

*MOUSE PRINT missing:

During the interview itself, there was no on-screen disclosure that this was in essence an infomercial for Verizon or that the expert was a paid spokesperson.

To be fair, another co-anchor of the program did introduce the segment saying that they were partnering with Verizon who in turn had hired this financial expert to offer advice. TV shows like this have adopted the phrase “we partnered with X company” as a euphemism for really meaning that X company has paid the network to air the following segment. During the interview, Tony Dokoupil did say once that the guest was “here on behalf of Verizon” but did not mention CBS was paid too.

Multiple disclosure laws apply to segments like this from the FCC (“payola” rules) that require broadcasters to say if they received money to air a particular segment, and from the FTC to make clear to viewers that content that looks like the actual program but is really an advertisement has to be clearly disclosed. (See native advertising guidelines.) Lastly, the fact that the financial advisor was paid by Verizon also has to be disclosed under the FTC’s endorsement and testimonial guidelines.

Did the introduction to the segment really do all that as clearly as it could? And given that viewers tune in and out of morning shows as they get ready for the day, why was there no on-screen disclosure at all during the nearly five-minute interview itself? We asked the senior vice president of CBS News standards and practices about that, along with the bigger issue of whether it is ever appropriate for a CBS News broadcast to include advertising segments made to look like regular program content.

“The segment was clearly identified as a partnership and sponsored by Verizon throughout, both visually and verbally. We took extra steps to identify the guest as a Verizon “brand partner” and that she was there for the company. We did all of this in compliance with FCC regulations and to ensure our viewers clearly understood our relationship with Verizon.” — CBS News spokesperson.

See one of our prior stories where some other national programs and other media run segments that are really sales pitches.

Feel free to offer your thoughts in the comments.