The US House Of Representatives has passed the TICKET Act, which will introduce new regulations for the American ticketing sector. The music community is mainly supportive of the new rules, though there are concerns that there’s a problematic loophole in the current version of the new legislation

US House passes TICKET Act, but industry groups raise concerns about loophole in speculative selling ban | by Chris Cooke | Apr 30, 2025 | CMU

The TICKET Act, which would ramp up regulation of the ticketing business in the US, has been overwhelmingly passed by the US House Of Representatives, with supporters of the legislation now calling on the Senate to do the same. And to do so quickly. Not least because the House previously passed this bill last year, but it didn’t make its way through the Senate before the end of the last Congress.

John Breyault from consumer rights group the National Consumers League says “consumers deserve transparency and fairness when buying event tickets”, and therefore “the Senate must now move swiftly”, because “with so many live events coming this summer, consumers can’t afford more delays”.

Jan Schakowsky, one of the Congress members behind the bill, which she dubs “common-sense legislation that will end deceptive ticketing practices”, has echoed the need for urgency, stating, “I will keep working to urge quick Senate passage”.

However, some music industry groups - including NITO and NIVA - have raised concerns that aspects of the bill include loopholes or create new problems. For example, there’s a “concierge service” exclusion from the ban on speculative selling and the “all-in pricing” obligation actually makes it easier for promoters and ticket agents to add and hide additional fees.

With that in mind, while those industry groups would still like the new regulations to become law sooner rather than later, they have urged Senators to nevertheless consider and address those other issues as they debate and vote on the legislation.

Most regulation of ticketing in the US currently happens at a state level and the rules differ greatly around the country. But there have been multiple proposals in Congress in recent years to regulate ticketing on a US-wide basis. And the lawmakers behind those proposals have been lobbied by numerous different campaign groups, groups that often agree on some things but disagree on others.

Some lobbying groups primarily represent ticket resellers and the resale platforms, and want to ensure new rules don’t stop for-profit ticket touting or scalping. Other groups oppose for-profit resale. And yet all those groups might agree on things like all-in pricing, where primary and secondary ticketing platforms are obliged to declare the full price of a ticket - including fees and commissions - upfront.

Then you have Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary, which also lobby hard. Despite still being active in the ticket resale market itself in the US, Live Nation is generally happier to accept more regulation of secondary ticketing.

Especially if that distracts lawmakers from regulating primary ticketing platforms, and from starting to consider if the combined Live Nation and Ticketmaster are too dominant in the live entertainment market.

The TICKET Act does five main things. First, it would mandate all-in pricing - which the US Federal Trade Commission has actually already done - but it would put that obligation specifically into law. Second, it would ban speculative selling, where scalpers list for sale tickets they are yet to secure.

It would also stop scalpers from stating or implying they are official sellers of tickets; it would provide consumers with protection in federal law guaranteeing a refund when shows are cancelled; and it would force the FTC to provide an update on the enforcement of the previous BOTS Act, which outlawed the use of special software, or bots, by scalpers to buy up tickets from primary sites.

All those measures are supported by much of the music community. Although the National Independent Talent Organization, speaking for agents and managers, has raised concerns about the all-in pricing obligation - echoing concerns it previously raised when the FTC announced its similar rule.

Although it’s good that consumers are told the total price of buying a ticket upfront, NITO says that that actually makes it easier for promoters and ticket agents to add extra hidden fees.

That’s because it will be less clear what portion of the total cost is the ticket price the artist agreed to and what portion is all the extra fees that artists are often not consulted about. Therefore, NITO argues, there should also be an obligation to itemise the face value of the ticket and any additional fees.

“The TICKET Act that just passed the House does not do nearly enough to protect fans and consumers against bad actors”, the trade group says in a statement published earlier this week, highlighting the concern that “all-in pricing without itemisation means fans won’t know the price the artist sets”.

NITO also has concerns about the exception to the ban on speculative selling, an issue that has also been highlighted by the National Independent Venue Association. Although the TICKET Act says scalpers and resale platforms can’t advertise tickets they are yet to secure, it then says that they can promote a concierge service where they offer to “obtain a ticket” for a future event on behalf of a buyer.

There are some restrictions on how that service is communicated, but critics argue that that exception will allow scalpers to basically carry on speculatively selling tickets by including some copy about providing a concierge service that most buyers won’t understand.

Both NITO and NIVA particularly hone in on the Seat Saver programme run by Vivid Seats, which allows scalpers to sell a concierge service that basically means they can advertise tickets they are yet to secure.

“Vivid Seats spec ticket Seat Saver programme is still 100% legal” under the TICKET Act as currently written, NITO points out. Meanwhile in its statement NIVA says, “the inclusion of a ‘concierge service’ carveout would undermine the speculative ticket ban”.

“Concierge services”, it explains, “should not be a loophole for companies like Vivid Seats to claim they are offering a service while selling ‘tickets’ they don't possess to unsuspecting fans”.

NIVA Executive Director Stephen Parker adds, “We urge Congress to amend language to make certain that ‘concierge services’ do not empower multi-billion dollar resale platforms over consumers. We look forward to working with the Senate to ensure that fans, venues and artists are prioritised in the final version of the TICKET Act”.

https://completemusicupdate.com/us-house-passes-ticket-act-but-industry-groups-raise-concerns-about-loophole-in-speculative-selling-ban/?ref=cmu-daily-newsletter