The legal team at eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY) has been working harder than Mystic Tan guy at Angelo Mozilo's favorite salon.

First, Tiffany (NYSE: TIF) sued the company over counterfeit merchandise appearing on the auction site. Then, eBay sued Craigslist, Craigslist sued eBay, and many legal fees were spent by all. Now, eBay and its StubHub subsidiary have attracted the scorn of Chicago, which is suing the company for failing to collect the 8% amusement tax the city charges on ticket sales, including resales. Heaven forbid anyone in Chicago have fun without forking 8% over to the city. eBay says the 8% sales tax doesn't apply to it.

Chicago's city government joins Texas and New York in looking to crack down on e-commerce sites that don't collect sales tax.

It's unclear to me why the 8% amusement tax should apply to the resale of tickets online -- the tax has already been collected on that ticket, hasn't it? But bureaucrats have an infinite number of ways to make money, and that requires an ever-growing pile of money to waste. It'll be a victory for consumers if eBay emerges victorious in this battle.

To those of you with younger females in the house, you may know the Disney television show Hannah Montana. It features the real-life daughter of country singer Billy Ray Cyrus as a normal teenager that has a secret double life as a Hillary Duff-esque teenie-bop singer. This past Saturday morning, tickets were to go on sale at 10 a.m. CDT for tickets to a December Hannah Montana concert.

To girls in the eight-to-15 age bracket, this is gold stuff. Problem is -- no tickets were actually available at 10 a.m. when they were supposed to go on general sale. Using a combination of live, box-office presence, wireless Internet website checking and old-fashioned box-office phone calling, it was pretty clear to probably thousands of local parents here that no tickets would be for sale.

As always, the problem with high-profile concerts and appearances is the scam-laden "ticket broker" industry. These opportunists somehow manage to scoop up all tickets to major events (especially high-demand children's events) before general public ticket sales even happen, then spread them all over the web at 400% to 1000% markups. Some parents don't care and will do anything to buy these tickets, while level-headed ones become incredibly annoyed that ticket travesties like this happen, and consistently.

Ticketmaster, the leading ticket sales website owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp (NYSE: IACI) is being sued by the Cleveland Cavaliers. The NBA basketball team accuses the company of anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.

According to the Associated Press, "The Cavaliers allege in the lawsuit that Ticketmaster is trying to prevent the team's Flash Seats secondary-ticketing Web site from competing with the ticketing giant. Flash Seats provides season ticket holders a way to sell and transfer seats electronically _ a system that is superior to Ticketmaster's TeamExchange program, the lawsuit says."

Ticketmaster has also sued the team, claiming that its contract makes the relationship with Flash Seats illegal.

As Doug McIntyre wrote earlier, IAC reported disappointing earnings today sending the stock down more than 5%. But the drop does not appear to be attributable to the Ticketmaster lawsuit.

Zac Bissonnette is a partner and writer for Hedge Funnies, a satirical take on the financial markets.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer signed a bill last week eliminating state-imposed price restriction on reselling event tickets, effectively legalizing scalping. More and more states have been repealing anti-scalping laws in recent years, paving the way for companies like eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) subsidiary StubHub to create a market for the resale of tickets.

As "deregulation" of scalping continues, StubHub and similar companies should prosper. It's hard to understand why it's taken so long for so many states to eliminate these antiquated laws. According to the Boston Globe, "The justification for anti-scalping laws has been the desire to prevent fans from paying exorbitant amounts for tickets."

But if someone wants to pay $5,000 for a ticket to see the Rolling Stones, why would the government interfere? Who exactly is being protected when the state tells a guy who wants to buy a ticket from someone who wants to sell it that he's not allowed to see the concert.

There's really no economics-based justification for anti-scalping laws. It appears to be a reaction to the unsavory perception of the business, but I can think of plenty of other unsavory industries that are perfectly legal. Now I'm going to go look at my cell phone bill and try to figure out why it's so high.