Why should that be banned? It's part of the transaction cost. People don't seem to understand that renting is, or should be, a voluntary transaction between a tenant and a landlord.
And the thing is that it's not voluntary any more than grocery shopping is. You can maybe make a point about where (sort of -- where I live, this practice is actually allowed statewide, so it's not strictly a rural/urban divide), but that's a separate axis from whether or not people need places to live. (Theoretically buying is an option, but if renting is inaccessible, it's unlikely that you're really looking at homeownership either.)
This is just the same laissez-faire capitalism that gave us Ticketmaster, right down to being an identical business model.
I'm not sure what point you're making about Ticketmaster. That business is completely different from the rental market (for example, there are probably literally a million times as many providers).
And unlike other up-front costs (first/last/security) it doesn't actually provide value to a tenant in any way. It's a third party that is really only acting on behalf of a landlord, never mind the part where we're talking about literal rent-seeking.
Essentially, it's deceptive advertising, that makes for a less fair and accessible marketplace to consumers. Especially in any remotely competitive rental market (which is a lot of them now, given the way prices have skyrocketed in recent years relative to pay), it's easy to get stuck paying an exorbitant fee simply for lack of a clear way to find out which places don't expect you to pay the third party they contracted.
And that's not a free market either.