"That's the Ticket" Workshop: Staff Perspective, May 2020

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop

STAFF PERSPECTIVE | MAY 2020

Introduction

Consumers spent about $10 billion for online tickets to concerts, sporting events, theater, and

other live events in 2019.

Unfortunately, deceptive advertising in the online event marketplace

persists despite FTC and state attorney general law enforcement actions against ticket sellers and

resellers.

Views on how to address these and other problems in the ticket marketplace vary

considerably among the market’s many players, including artists, sports teams, promoters,

venues, primary ticket sellers, ticket resale platforms, and brokers. To bring together these

divergent views and explore possible solutions, the FTC hosted a public workshop, entitled

“That’s the Ticket,” on June 11, 2019.

In this staff perspective, we highlight key takeaways from areas covered by the workshop,

including how the unique circumstance of intentional underpricing of primary market tickets

together with the expansion of the internet has led to an online event ticket market ripe for

opportunistic and deceptive practices. Many workshop participants advocated for federal

legislation and enforcement to protect consumers and encourage a fair and transparent online

event ticket market.

The Ticket Market Is Broken

The workshop’s keynote speaker

acknowledged, “As an economist, it’s clear that the ticket

market is broken in significant ways.” He explained that before the primary and secondary ticket

markets moved to the internet, tickets were sold in localized markets with few economies of

scale. A person could get only one spot in line to buy tickets, and only one person (e.g., a ticket

scalper) could resell those tickets outside the venue. As event ticket selling has moved almost

exclusively online, ticket buying and selling are no longer localized, but are transacted on a

nationwide basis. Yet consumers have not necessarily realized the benefits of the resulting

massive economies of scale.

The keynote speaker observed a phenomenon unique to the event ticket market – intentional

underpricing. He explained that because concerts and sporting events are social events, artists

and sports teams have incentives for underpricing tickets. Going to an event that is half-empty

(because primary market prices were set too high) is not what artists, sports teams, promoters, or

consumers want. In addition, artists and teams have long-term public relations goals to have fans

perceive them as fair, especially die-hard fans who cannot afford pricey tickets. Artists and

teams may choose to forgo short-term revenue for the long-term benefits resulting from

preserving their reputations and fan bases.

FTC BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION FTC.GOV

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

This intentional underpricing means that the primary market offers tickets for sale at far less than

their market value. The gap between the face value of a high demand ticket and its market value

is seen as “free money” by those brokers who are able to scoop up underpriced tickets and resell

them for substantial profit.

Despite changes in the law, brokers may use bots or other means to

purchase these underpriced tickets before ordinary consumers can buy them at face value.

The Scarcity of Primary Tickets to Popular Events: Causes and

Possible Solutions

THE ROLE OF HOLDBACKS AND STAGGERED SALES

As Commissioner Slaughter noted in her opening remarks, consumers are often frustrated that

they cannot buy tickets at face value to highly desired events on the primary market, and

therefore must pay a much higher price on the resale market. Holdbacks – the practice of venues

reserving tickets for later sale or for the use of performers, promoters, season ticket holders, and

other select entities – likely contributes to this situation, both because it reduces the number of

tickets available for the general public and because many of these tickets end up on the resale

market at a higher price.

A New York Attorney General investigation revealed that promoters held back approximately

sixteen percent of tickets for industry insiders, and in some cases artists held back as much as

thirty percent of available tickets.

Some workshop participants strongly disputed the claim that

artists and promoters routinely hold back large volumes of tickets, stressing that artists,

promoters, and ticketing companies share a common goal to get as many tickets as possible into

the hands of consumers in the most efficient manner.

Having a single public “on-sale” for an event, where primary ticket sellers make all tickets

available to the public at once, is no longer the norm. Artists, teams, theater productions, and

other event providers now make tickets available through a number of avenues geared to

different customer types. For example, artists or promoters may choose to sell some tickets

through fan clubs or to holders of particular credit cards. Workshop participants debated

whether these specialized on-sales to limited audiences help or disadvantage ordinary consumers.

Presales to fan clubs can benefit consumers by enabling artists and promoters to identify and

reward dedicated fans with affordable access to events, while also deterring brokers and bot

users. Artists and promoters typically publicize fan club sales on artists’ websites or in press

releases. Panelists noted that credit card member-only on-sales also are well-publicized and

open to large numbers of consumers; such sponsorship arrangements also can help to defray

costs of live shows, making them more affordable to consumers.

WOULD MORE TRANSPARENCY ABOUT TICKET ALLOCATIONS HELP CONSUMERS?

Workshop participants expressed divergent views on the benefits of providing consumers with

transparency about: the number or percentage of tickets given to artists and promoters for their

own use; the number or percentage of tickets allocated for fan club sales, credit card member-

only on-sales, or public on-sales; how consumers qualify for specialized on-sales; and ticket

release schedules, e.g., for staggered batch tickets or dynamically priced tickets (where prices

change in real time depending on market demand). Federal and state legislators have proposed

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

legislation requiring such transparency. Brokers and resale market platforms assert that such

information would help manage consumer expectations about their chances of obtaining tickets

to particular events and assist in their buying decisions.

In contrast, workshop participants

representing artists and the primary market opined that increased transparency about ticket

allocations could simply provide a roadmap for brokers as to where they should focus their ticket

purchasing efforts to scoop up the highest demand tickets at the lowest prices.

WOULD LIMITING TRANSFERABILITY OF SOME TICKETS HELP CONSUMERS?

Some participants recommended allowing artists and teams to restrict the resale of some or all of

their tickets. Artists and teams could continue to set low prices, but transferability restrictions

would prevent brokers from buying up the underpriced tickets and reselling them at a substantial

mark-up. Promoters and primary ticket sellers said such a practice would put affordable tickets

in the hands of consumers – the true fans.

A workshop participant explained that in New York,

which requires all tickets to be transferable, professional brokers often buy up to seventy-five to

eighty-five percent of available lower-priced tickets. An Assistant New York Attorney General

agreed that the ban on non-transferability has contributed to ticket unavailability to consumers,

and he supported changing the law to allow content providers to make some tickets non-

transferable.

Other participants argued that limiting ticket transferability may lead to higher prices and

emptier venues. For example, a large percentage of Major League Baseball tickets are sold

below face value across multiple platforms, allowing fans to get cheaper tickets and games to be

better-attended. Restricting ticket transferability could impose artificial price floors for events

that do not sell out, and would eliminate the role of brokers in off-loading risks for sports teams

and entertainers by purchasing tickets up front, assuming the risk that some tickets will not be

resold. Some participants argued that limiting ticket transfers or resales to a single platform

could deter competition and ultimately harm consumers. Some participants instead suggested

integrated ticketing systems so that consumers selling their tickets through different resale

marketplaces could connect to the primary ticketing company to complete the transfer, protecting

against ticketing error and fraud.

BOTS IN THE ONLINE TICKET MARKETPLACE

Bots are computer programs written to mimic human interactions on computers, sometimes at

greatly accelerated speeds. As Commissioner Slaughter stated in her opening remarks, profit-

seeking buyers use bots to tie-up and buy large volumes of tickets, thereby gaining an advantage

over ordinary consumers who are unable to get tickets to high demand events unless they pay

higher – sometimes exorbitant – prices on the resale market. An Assistant New York Attorney

General pointed out that ticket resellers also evade ticket-purchasing limits by other means,

including using hundreds of credit card numbers, proxy IP addresses, or other tools that hide

their identities and make it appear that ticket purchases are unrelated to each other.

The Better Online Ticket Sales Act (“the BOTS Act”), passed by Congress in 2016, makes it

illegal to use bots or other means to circumvent limits on bulk-ticket purchases. The BOTS Act

also makes it illegal to sell tickets obtained in violation of the statute if the seller participated in

the illegal purchase, or knew or should have known how the tickets were purchased. The

Commission and State Attorneys General share enforcement authority under the BOTS Act.

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

Workshop participants noted that thwarting bots and identifying the entities behind them still are

not easy tasks, given both the continual innovation by bots developers and the large number of

players and platforms involved in the ticketing markets. However, some panelists described

recent industry efforts to defeat or deter them – such as the addition of virtual waiting rooms and

fan verification programs. Workshop participants emphasized the need for coordination among

the primary and secondary ticket markets, the technology sector, and law enforcement to

mitigate these challenges.

Obscuring the True Price of Tickets

TICKET COST TRANSPARENCY: ALL-IN TICKET PRICING

On most primary and resale platforms, the ticket price a consumer first sees is not what the

consumer will pay. Mandatory fees, such as “venue” and “ticket processing” fees, bulk up the

price – often by as much as thirty percent.

Consumers often do not see these fees until after

they have selected their tickets, sometimes only after entering their payment information. The

late disclosure of fees increases search costs for consumers and makes it harder to comparison

shop. An economist

explained that price obfuscation (hiding) causes prices to go up and

causes a misallocation of tickets. Tickets will not necessarily go to the consumers who value

them the most because consumers make purchasing decisions before learning the actual cost.

That economist views obfuscation as largely a problem of the resale market, where similar

tickets (or the exact same ticket) to one event might be offered on multiple platforms. A

consumer advocate asserted that price obfuscation also harms primary ticket shoppers who select

the most expensive tickets they can afford but then incur substantial additional fees.

Among workshop participants, views varied on how best to display ticket prices and fees. One

participant referenced a study showing that consumers prefer to see fees broken out, followed by

a sum of the total cost. An economist noted research showing that when consumers are

presented with a price broken into parts without the total sum, they often miscalculate.

As Commissioner Slaughter noted, it is difficult for any single platform to impose all-in pricing,

as it would likely lose business to those who continue to hide true prices. The keynote speaker

noted that this is exactly what happened to one resale platform that unilaterally launched an all-in

pricing model.

This platform lost significant market share and abandoned the policy after a

year because consumers perceived the platform’s advertised prices to be higher than its

competitors’ displayed prices, which did not include fees. As a model for regulation, both the

keynote speaker and Commissioner Slaughter pointed to the airline approach. Under the

Department of Transportation’s revised Full Fare Advertising Rule, all mandatory fees must be

included in the ticket display price.

All of the workshop panelists who discussed the fees issue, including each participating ticket

seller that does not currently provide upfront all-in pricing, favored requiring all-in pricing

through federal legislation or rulemaking. A workshop participant stressed that any proposed

legislation must include a robust enforcement component with meaningful penalties to deter

violators. The participant explained that three Canadian provinces have adopted all-in pricing

legislation but, due to lack of enforcement, many industry members do not comply. In her

closing remarks, the Associate Director for Advertising Practices recognized that the all-in

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

pricing prisoner’s dilemma makes this “a ripe area for legislation, followed by vigorous

enforcement that would establish an even playing field where it would best protect consumers.”

TICKET COST TRANSPARENCY: FACE VALUE OF TICKETS

Although some have suggested legislation requiring ticket sellers to display the “face value” of

tickets when listing them for sale, a number of workshop participants said that such a

requirement would not be feasible or useful to consumers. One workshop participant explained

that it is sometimes difficult to determine a ticket’s “face value” because the price paid might

depend on how many tickets were bought together, whether they were purchased as part of a

package, or if they were dynamically priced. Ticket resale marketplaces are not necessarily in a

position to verify whether the listed face value is accurate. Aside from accuracy concerns, the

face value might not be useful to consumers, as the price originally set for a ticket might not

reflect its true market value some months later. A consumer advocate opined that in some cases

the price differential between the face value and asking price could alert consumers that they are

not on a primary sale site.

When a Ticket Isn’t a Ticket, or a “Primary” Seller is a Secondary

Seller

SPECULATIVE TICKET SELLING

Some resale platforms allow “speculative ticket” listings – listings that are not for actual tickets

but for the “option to buy” the listed (or comparable) tickets if a reseller can obtain them after a

consumer’s purchase. A recent New York Attorney General lawsuit alleged that more than $91

million worth of speculative tickets were sold in New York state over approximately six years.

Workshop participants identified numerous problems with speculative ticketing: sellers do not

clearly disclose that they do not have tickets in hand; even when sellers do disclose clearly,

consumers still do not understand, and may pay more for speculative tickets than they would for

available, actual tickets; and when sellers fail to deliver actual tickets, consumers may incur

losses that significantly exceed the ticket price.

Speculative ticket listings typically look like a listing for an actual ticket, displaying a zone,

section, and/or row. Prices and fees, especially for popular events, are often higher than listings

for actual tickets offered simultaneously on the primary market. Some resellers post speculative

listings for events before actual tickets are available to consumers on the primary market. Many

consumers do not realize they are not purchasing actual tickets. Even if a reseller discloses that a

listed ticket is not in hand, consumers may mistakenly believe the reseller is the primary seller or

has an agreement with the primary seller to get exclusive tickets. Unfortunately, many

consumers learn the truth only weeks or months after purchase, when the seller cancels their

order or otherwise fails to deliver tickets.

Several workshop participants supported federal legislation like the proposed Better Oversight of

Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act, which would require resellers to

provide clear disclosures when tickets are not in hand. However, other workshop participants

asserted that similar state legislation, which requires resellers to provide a written notice when

they do not possess or have a legal right to a ticket,

has been ineffective. Venues in states that

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

require such disclosures continue to receive consumer complaints about cancelled speculative

ticket orders that consumers thought were for actual tickets.

Given the ineffectiveness of disclosures regarding speculative tickets, some participants

advocated restricting or outlawing the sale of speculative tickets. Nevada prohibits all

speculative ticket sales, and one workshop advocated that Congress adopt similar legislation. At

a minimum, some participants argued, it should be illegal to sell speculative tickets before actual

tickets go on sale.

For consumers who purchase speculative tickets and never receive actual tickets, refunds may be

insufficient to make them whole. Such consumers lose not only the (difficult to quantify)

opportunity to see their favorite artist or sports team, but also may have incurred transportation

or lodging expenses. While one participant pointed out that many ticket resellers provide

consumers a 200% refund if they fail to provide valid tickets in time for an event,

a venue

participant criticized this as an arbitrary amount that fails to compensate some consumers for

their actual losses.

TICKET RESALE WEBSITES THAT USE DECEPTIVE WEBSITE URLS AND DESIGNS

Despite Commission enforcement efforts,

numerous ticket resellers continue to use deceptive

website URLs and landing pages that are difficult to distinguish from those of venues, artists, or

other primary ticket sellers.

Workshop participants recommended federal legislation and

increased law enforcement, opining that self-regulation is unlikely to deter resellers who engage

in deceptive practices by making themselves look like primary sellers. Although some states

have passed legislation, participants agreed that stronger, more consistent legislation is needed.

A venue participant opined that New York’s law, which penalizes resellers that intentionally

mislead consumers when using venue or event names in URLs,

has been ineffective in

preventing consumer deception in this area. Another participant suggested the need for federal

legislation similar to laws in states like Maryland and New Jersey, which prohibit resellers from

using venue, event, or similar names in website URLs unless authorized by the primary ticket

seller.

One panelist noted that only federal legislation could ensure consistent protections for

consumers regardless of where a consumer, venue, seller or reseller is located. While

acknowledging the need for strong federal legislation, one participant urged the Commission to

pursue more law enforcement actions under its current authority.

Post-Workshop Developments: Better Oversight of Secondary Sales

and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act of 2019

FTC staff notes that two days after its workshop, on June 13, 2019, U.S. Representatives Bill

Pascrell, Jr. and Frank Pallone, Jr., and Senator Richard Blumenthal reintroduced the Better

Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act, commonly referred

to as the BOSS ACT.

The proposed legislation seeks to enhance transparency about ticket

allocations, pricing, and face value. First, the proposed legislation would prohibit persons who

receive tickets due to their affiliation with venues, artists, or promoters from selling acquired

tickets on the resale market at a price higher than the primary sale price for such tickets. Second,

it also would require that primary ticket sellers disclose, a week before the public on-sale, the

total number of tickets available to the general public. Third, the proposed legislation would

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

prohibit restrictions on the resale of tickets purchased from a primary seller, prohibit primary

sellers from setting minimum prices at which tickets can be resold, and prohibit sanctions against

persons who sell or purchase tickets through a resale market. To improve transparency in ticket

pricing, the proposed legislation would require ticket sellers to disclose all mandatory fees before

a consumer selects a ticket and would prohibit sellers from changing the ticket’s price during the

purchase process.

With regard to speculative ticketing, the proposed legislation would require resellers to disclose

to consumers if they do not possess a ticket listed for sale.

It also would require resale

websites to provide a full refund (including the ticket price and fees) to consumers to whom they

fail to provide a purchased ticket. The proposed legislation would address deceptive resale

website URLs and landing pages by prohibiting ticket resale marketplaces from representing an

affiliation with a venue, team, or artist without consent. These marketplaces also would be

required to notify consumers that they sell resale tickets.

The proposed legislation gives the Commission rulemaking authority and gives enforcement

authority to both the Commission and state attorneys general. It also provides a private right of

action.

Conclusion

Throughout the workshop, participants suggested federal legislation, together with strong

enforcement and meaningful penalties, to address various practices in the primary and resale

ticket marketplaces that cause consumer injury. Should Congress enact federal legislation to

address consumer protection concerns in the ticket marketplace, FTC staff recommends the

legislation give the Commission authority to engage in notice and comment rulemaking and civil

penalty authority to comprehensively address unfair and deceptive practices in the online ticket

market.

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

Endnotes

IBISWorld, Online Event Ticket Sales in the U.S.: Market Research Report (Mar. 2019),

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/specialized-market-research-report/online-

retail/lifestyle-services/online-event-ticket-sales.html (estimating $10 billion in event ticket sales

for 2019).

FTC v. Ticketmaster, L.L.C., No. 1:10-cv-01093 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2010) (stipulated order)

(challenging practices of failing to disclose to consumers when they are directed from a primary

ticket website to a resale website and when resellers do not possess or have rights to tickets listed

for sale); FTC v. TicketNetwork, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01046-RNC (D. Conn. Aug. 12, 2014)

(“TicketNetwork” stipulated order) (challenging resellers’ use of search engine ads, URLs, and

website pages designed to look like those of venues and artists to deceive consumers); FTC v.

SecureBoxOffice, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-01046-RNC (D. Conn. Aug. 13, 2014) (“SecureBoxOffice”

stipulated order) (same as TicketNetwork); and FTC v. Ryadd, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01046-RNC (D.

Conn. Aug. 12, 2014) (“Ryadd” stipulated order) (same as TicketNetwork). (The TicketNetwork,

SecureBoxOffice, and Ryadd stipulated orders resolved joint FTC and State of Connecticut

actions.)

Videos of the workshop are available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-

calendar/2019/03/online-event-tickets-workshop.

Eric Budish is a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, Booth School of

Business, Co-Director of the Initiative on Global Markets and Chicago Booth, and a Research

Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research is on market design,

including the design of event ticket markets.

Professor Budish explained that dynamic pricing (pricing that varies to reflect the changes in

market conditions, such as increased demand) with market-clearing prices helps avoid ticket

underpricing; however, it may make primary tickets less affordable to consumers.

Other Consumer Protection Issues Around Ticket Availability, Panel 1-B, included participants:

Gary Adler, Executive Director and Counsel, National Association of Ticket Brokers; Russell

D’Souza, Cofounder, SeatGeek; David Marcus, Executive Vice President, Head of Ticketmaster

Music, Ticketmaster; Jeff Poirier, General Manager of Music, Theatre & Performing Arts.

StubHub; Joe Ridout, Manager of Consumer Services, Consumer Action; Bob Roux, President

of United States Concerts, Live Nation Entertainment; and Noah Stein, Assistant Attorney

General, Bureau of Internet & Technology, New York State Attorney General’s Office.

“Obstructed View: What’s Blocking New Yorkers from Getting Tickets,” Office of the New

York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (Jan. 2016),

https://ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Ticket_Sales_Report.pdf.

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

For example, a workshop participant suggested Ontario’s recently amended Ticket Sales Act as

a model for improving transparency in the U.S. market. Ontario’s law requires ticket sellers to

disclose how many tickets in total will be available, and, if tickets will be sold in batches, to

disclose in advance the date, time, and number of tickets in each batch.

Professor Budich explained that prohibiting ticket reselling completely also would prevent rent-

seeking and get affordable primary tickets in the hands of consumers.

Bots and the BOTS Act, Panel 1-A, included participants: Gary Adler, Executive Director and

Counsel, National Association of Ticket Brokers; Rami Essaid, Co-founder, Chief Product

Officer, Distil Networks; David Marcus, Executive Vice President, Head of Ticketmaster Music,

Ticketmaster; Jeff Poirier, General Manager of Music, Theatre & Performing Arts. StubHub; Joe

Ridout, Manager of Consumer Services, Consumer Action; and Noah Stein, Assistant Attorney

General, Bureau of Internet & Technology, New York State Attorney General’s Office.

15 U.S.C. § 45(c). The BOTS Act, which applies to event tickets for public concerts, theater

performances, sporting events, and similar activities at venues with seating capacities of over

200, prohibits the circumvention of a security measure, access control system, or other

technological control measure used online by a ticket issuer. It also prohibits selling or offering

to sell an event ticket obtained through such a circumvention violation if the seller participated

in, had the ability to control, or should have known about the violation.

The Adequacy of Ticket Price and Fee Disclosures, Panel 2, included participants: Laura Brett,

Director, National Advertising Division of Better Business Bureau National Programs; Russ

D’Souza, Co-founder, SeatGeek; Sara Fisher Ellison, Senior Lecturer, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology’s Economics Department; Anna Laitin, Director of Financial Policy, Consumer

Reports; John Lawrence, Counsel, StubHub; Tamara Mendelsohn, Vice President and General

Manager of Consumer, Eventbrite; and Patti-Anne Tarlton, Executive Vice President of Venues

and Promoters, Ticketmaster.

Government Accountability Office, Event Ticket Sales: Market Characteristics and Consumer

Protection Issues (Apr. 2018) (GAO-18-347), www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-347 (“GAO

Report”) (finding that primary and resale ticket companies charge total fees averaging 27 percent

and 31 percent, respectively, of the ticket’s price.) The GAO noticed that, for most events it

reviewed, consumers could not figure out fees until selecting a seat, clicking through additional

screens, creating a user name and password (or logging in), and clicking an “Order Details” icon.

Moreover, fees were often displayed in fonts significantly smaller than those used for ticket

prices.

Sarah Fisher Ellison is a Senior Lecturer, and award-winning instructor, in the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology’s Economics Department. Her best-known research in the area of

ecommerce examines search and obfuscation.

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

In 2014, StubHub unilaterally made its fees transparent through an all-in pricing model, while

its competitors did not change their practices.

49 U.S.C. § 41712, with implementing regulations at 14 C.F.R Part 399. The rule mandates

that whenever a carrier or its ticket agent states a price for air transportation, the advertised price

must be the full price that the customer will pay. If the total cost of the ticket exceeds the

advertised price, then the advertisement likely violates the rule.

Panel 3, Consumer Confusion: What and From Whom Am I Buying, included participants:

John Breyault, Vice President for Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud, National

Consumers League; Gilbert Hoover, Vice President and General Counsel, The Schubert

Organization; Katy McCabe, Senior Policy Advisor, Global Product Policy Team, Google;

Michael Marion, Chairman, International Association of Venue Managers; and Don Vacarro,

Founder and Chief Executive Officer, TicketNetwork.

The State of New York and the ticket resale companies settled these allegations in July 2019.

The resale companies agreed to pay a $1.55 million monetary judgment and clearly and

conspicuously disclose to consumers in future ticket listings when they do not possess tickets.

“Attorney General James Announces Settlement With Ticket Resale Companies For Selling

Tickets They Never Owned,” New York Attorney General Press Release (Jul. 10, 2019),

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/attorney-general-james-announces-settlement-ticket-resale-

companies-selling.

For example, New York’s legislation prohibits a reseller from selling tickets for which the

reseller has no possession or contractual right unless the reseller clearly and conspicuously

provides written notice to consumers that the reseller “does not have possession of the ticket, has

no contract to obtain the offered ticket …, [and] may not be able to supply the ticket at the

contracted price or range of prices, and requires such purchaser to expressly confirm prior to

completing the transaction that the purchaser has read such notice.” New York Senate Bill

8501B § 25.10 (amendments adopted May 9, 2018),

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/S8501B.

A participant representing a foreign consumer protection agency discussed a law enforcement

action the agency brought against a resale ticket website. Among other things, the agency’s final

order obligates the resale ticket website to require its brokers to provide an actual seat number

for each ticket listing (under the theory that the broker can provide such if she or he owns or has

the rights to the ticket) and confirm that they have purchased or have a right to purchase a ticket.

The resale ticket website is prohibited from setting up an event page until ensuring that event

tickets have been released on the primary market.

The National Association of Ticket Brokers requires that all its members provide a 200%

money-back guarantee for tickets cancelled for any reason.

“That’s the Ticket” Workshop | Staff Perspective

FTC v. TicketNetwork, Inc., FTC v. SecureBoxOffice, LLC, and FTC v. Ryadd, Inc., supra note

A participant from a popular search engine platform discussed policies the company

implemented in response to complaints that its users were unable to distinguish primary from

resale ticket sellers. The policy requires resale ticket websites to disclose that they are a resale

marketplace within the top twenty percent of each web page and in at least the same size font as

the majority of text on the page. The policy also prohibits resale websites from using venue or

artist names in their search-ad URLs and prohibits use of the term “official” unless authorized by

the primary ticket seller. While workshop participants applauded these efforts, they noted that

deceptive URLs and websites mimicking primary sellers remain prevalent, especially on other

search engine platforms that do not restrict what resale ticket websites display in search ads.

New York’s legislation requires ticket resellers to post a clear and conspicuous notice that they

sell resale tickets. New York Senate Bill 8501B § 25.23, supra note 19. One section of the bill

also prohibits resellers from using the name of a venue, event, or similar language in a website

URL “with the intent to mislead or deceive.” However, this section provides an exception for

resellers “acting on behalf of, and with the consent of the … event, artist or sports team.” Id. §

25.34.

Maryland’s legislation prohibits resellers from using the name of venues or events, or

substantially similar names unless acting on a venue’s behalf. Maryland House Bill 740

(enacted May 26, 2018 under Art. II § 17(c) of the Maryland Constitution – Chapter 825),

https://legiscan.com/MD/text/HB740/id/1804343/Maryland-2018-HB740-Chaptered.pdf. New

Jersey’s legislation prohibits resellers from advertising tickets to New Jersey residents through a

ticket website with a URL that includes the venue or event name unless authorized by the venue.

Senate Bill 2665 (approved Jan. 31, 2019 under P.L. 2019, Chapter 8).

H.R. 3248, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3248. Representative

Albio Sires also cosponsored the proposed legislation.

As written, the proposed legislation appears to require resellers to make this disclosure even if

they have a contractual right to the tickets, for example resellers with season ticket agreements.

As written, the proposed legislation does not appear to place the same requirements on

unscrupulous brokers or other resellers who may deceptively design their website URLs or

landing pages to look like those of primary ticketing websites.