[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IN THE DARK: LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN
THE LIVE EVENT TICKETING INDUSTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-102
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-376 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Chair
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Ranking Member
Massachusetts, Vice Chair MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
RAUL RUIZ, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
KATHY CASTOR, Florida SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
PAUL TONKO, New York JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Amy Howe, President and Chief Operating Officer, Ticketmaster.... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions............................... 157
Bryan Perez, Chief Executive Officer, AXS........................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 175
Stephanie Burns, Vice President and General Counsel Stubhub...... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 182
Ryan Fitts, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Vivid Seats........... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to submitted questions............................... 191
Don Vaccaro, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer,
Ticketnetwork.................................................. 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to submitted questions............................... 197
Joseph F. Choti, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Tickets.Com.................................................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Answers to submitted questions............................... 208
Submitted Material
Letter of December 23, 2020, to Mr Pallone, by Jonathan Su,
Latham & Watkins LLP., Ticketmaster, submitted by Ms. DeGette
\1\
Letter of December 12, 2019, to Mr. Pallone, et al., by Dan
Beckerman, President and CEO, Anschutz Entertainment Group,
Inc., submitted by Ms. DeGette................................. 98
Letter of January 31, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., by Dan
Beckerman, President and CEO, Anschutz Entertainment Group,
Inc., submitted by Ms. DeGette................................. 120
Letter of December 23, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from
StubHub, submitted by Ms. DeGette \2\
----------
\1\The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/
20200226/110588/HHRG-116-IF02-20200226-SD003.pdf.
\2\The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/
20200226/110588/HHRG-116-IF02-20200226-SD006.pdf.
Email of December 10, 2019, to Mr. Pallone, et al., by Pantelis
M. S. Golodny, Steptoe and Johnson LLP., and Ryan J Fitts, VP,
Legal Affairs, Vivid Seats LLC, submitted by Ms. DeGette \3\
Ticket Network of December 10, 2019, requested information, to
the H.R. Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted by Ms.
DeGette........................................................ 137
Ticket Network Exhibits Chart, submitted by Ms. DeGette.......... 143
Letter of January 10, 2020, to Mr. Aslami and Committee Members,
by Joe Choti, President and CEO, Tickets.com, submitted by Ms.
DeGette \4\
----------
\3\The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/
20200226/110588/HHRG-116-IF02-20200226-SD007.pdf.
\4\The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/
20200226/110588/HHRG-116-IF02-20200226-SD010.pdf.
IN THE DARK: LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE LIVE EVENT TICKETING INDUSTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Diana DeGette (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives DeGette, Schakowsky, Kennedy,
Ruiz, Kuster, Tonko, Clarke, Peters, Pallone (ex officio),
Guthrie (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess, McKinley,
Griffith, Brooks, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Flores.
Staff Present: Mohammad Aslami, Counsel; Kevin Barstow,
Chief Oversight Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director;
Manmeet Dhindsa, Counsel; Austin Flack, Staff Assistant; Evan
Gilbert, Deputy Press Secretary; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Alex Hoehm-
Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection;
Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member Service Coordinator; Chris
Knauer, Oversight Staff Director; Jon Monger, Counsel; ?Peter
Rechter, Counsel; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Emily Ryan, GAO
Detailee; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach
and Member Services; Benjamin Tabor, Staff Assistant; Rebecca
Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; Anna Yu, Professional Staff Member;
Jennifer Barblan, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Brittany Havens, Minority Professional Staff,
Oversight and Investigations; Peter Kielty, Minority General
Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel,
Consumer Protection and Commerce; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief
Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Ryan Long, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst;
Zack Roday, Minority Communications Director; and Callie
Strock, Minority Press Secretary.
Ms. DeGette. The subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing will now come to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Today the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is
holding a hearing entitled, ``In The Dark: Lack of Transparency
in the Live Event Ticketing Industry.'' The purpose of today's
hearing is to examine policies and practices in the live event
ticketing industry. The Chair will now recognize herself for
purposes of an opening statement.
Today's hearing will examine a lack of transparency in the
live event ticketing industry, an industry that's rife with
practices that are harmful to consumers. While many of us may
remember standing in line at the box office to purchase tickets
to a concert or sporting event or even buying tickets outside
of an arena from a scalper, most ticket sales to live events
now take place online through apps or ticketing websites.
In 2017 alone, online ticketing represented a nine billion-
dollar market in the United States. Unfortunately, the
industry's online financial success has often been at the
expense of the consumer.
While it is certainly easier to buy tickets to live events
today, online ticketing sales have led to anticonsumer
practices across the industry. These practices have been well-
documented by both State and Federal authorities. In 2016, for
example, the New York Attorney General investigated the live
event ticketing marketplace and found that, quote, ``ticketing
is a fixed game.''
More recently, the Government Accountability Office found a
number of concerning consumer protection issues in the
industry, including difficulty buying tickets at face value, a
lack of transparency around ticket fees, and misleading
marketing practices.
In response to consumer concerns, in June, 2019, the
Federal Trade Commission held a workshop designed to discuss
problematic practices in the ticketing industry. As a part of
that effort, consumer groups raised a host of consumer
protection issues in the online marketplace to the FTC
including practices that misled consumers about ticket prices
or availability, the prevalence of certain ticketing websites
that may confuse consumers about the entity from which they are
purchasing tickets, and restrictions that limit a consumer's
ability to transfer tickets.
On the heels of these investigations and the FTC workshop,
last November the committee continued its effort in examining
the ticketing industry by sending bipartisan letters to six
ticketing companies that make up a diverse cross-section of the
industry. The committee's letter inquired into a range of
issues that impact consumers. The company's responses and the
committee's investigation validated our concerns that consumers
face a number of disturbing practices when trying to buy
tickets online.
Today's hearing will give us the opportunity to hear
directly from companies about these practices and what can be
done. In particular, we will focus on five key findings today.
First, consumers attempting to buy tickets online continue
to be confronted by high hidden fees. These fees are often not
disclosed until the end of the transaction, which may mislead
consumers about the total cost of the ticket and frustrate
their ability to accurately compare prices. Today I want the
companies who engage in this practice to explain why they wait
until the very end of the buying process to pile on fees
instead of providing the total cost upfront, which is known as
all-in pricing.
Second, companies that place restrictions on consumers from
transferring purchased tickets to another individual may be
limiting choice for consumers and driving up prices. I want to
know why certain companies seem to be making it harder to
transfer or to resell a ticket that he has already purchased
and whether this practice is stifling the market and harming
consumers. I also want to know if the practice really prevents
fraud or if it's just an excuse to limit consumer choice.
Third, consumers appear to be impacted by a lack of
transparency relating to ticket availability. Consumers may be
unaware that only a limited number of seats frequently could be
available by the time tickets go on sale to the general public.
For example, the New York Attorney General's investigation
found that a majority of tickets for the most popular concerts
were reserved for industry insiders or presale events. I want
to know how often this occurs, why it's occurring, and why some
companies in the primary market are reluctant to let consumers
know about the actual number of tickets available at the time
of general sale.
The final two findings relate to white label websites and
the selling of speculative tickets. White label websites may
employ deceptive marketing practices to make consumers believe
they are purchasing tickets from an official website when truly
they are not. A speculative ticket refers to instances in which
a seller offers a ticket for sale on a resale exchange before
the seller has the ticket in hand. I want to know how prevalent
these practices are, how they impact consumers, and whether the
industry believes we should limit them.
As you can see, there's a lot to discuss today. It's clear
that many of these practices place consumers at a disadvantage
when buying tickets. I look forward to discussing how we can
put the consumer first as we look towards findings solutions to
make the industry much more transparent.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette
Today's hearing will examine the lack of transparency in
the live event ticketing industry-an industry that is rife with
practices that are harmful to consumers.
While many of us may remember standing in line at the box
office to purchase tickets to a concert or sporting event, or
even buying tickets outside of an arena from a scalper, most
ticket sales to live events now take place online through apps
or ticketing websites.
In 2017 alone, online ticketing represented a $9 billion
market in the United States. Unfortunately, the industry's
online financial success has often been at the expense of the
consumer.
While it is certainly easier to buy tickets to live events
today, online ticketing sales have led to anti-consumer
practices across the industry. These practices have been well-
documented by both state and federal authorities.
In 2016, for example, the New York Attorney General
investigated the live event ticketing marketplace and found
that [quote] ``Ticketing is a fixed game.''
More recently, the Government Accountability Office found a
number of concerning consumer protection issues in the
industry, including difficulty buying tickets at face value, a
lack of transparency around ticket fees, and misleading
marketing practices.
In response to consumer concerns, in June 2019, the Federal
Trade Commission held a workshop designed to discuss
problematic practices in the ticketing industry.
As part of that effort, consumer groups raised a host of
consumer protection issues in the online marketplace to the
FTC, including practices that mislead consumers about ticket
prices or availability, the prevalence of certain ticketing
websites that may confuse consumers about the entity from which
they are purchasing tickets, and restrictions that limit a
consumer's ability to transfer tickets.
On the heels of these investigations and the FTC workshop,
last November, the Committee continued its effort in examining
the ticketing industry by sending bipartisan letters to six
ticketing companies that make up a diverse cross-section of the
industry.
The Committee's letter inquired into a range of issues that
impact consumers. The companies' responses and the Committee's
investigation validated our concerns that consumers face a
number of disturbing practices when trying to buy tickets
online. Today's hearing gives us the opportunity to hear
directly from companies about these troubling practices.
In particular, we will focus on five key findings today:
First, consumers attempting to buy tickets online continue
to be confronted by high, hidden fees. These fees are often not
disclosed until the end of the transaction, which may mislead
consumers about the total cost of the ticket and frustrate
their ability to accurately compare prices. Today, I want the
companies to explain why they wait until the very end of the
buying process to pile on fees instead of providing the total
cost upfront, which is known as ``all-in'' pricing.
Second, companies that place restrictions on consumers from
transferring purchased tickets to another individual may be
limiting choice for consumers and driving up prices. I want to
know why certain companies seem to be making it harder to
transfer or resell a ticket that has already purchased, and
whether this practice is stifling the market and harming
consumers. I also want to know if this practice really prevents
fraud as some companies suggest or if this is another excuse to
limit consumer choice.
Third, consumers appear to be impacted by a lack of
transparency related to ticket availability. Consumers may be
unaware that only a limited number of seats could be available
by the time tickets go on sale to the general public. For
instance, the New York Attorney General's investigation found
that a majority of tickets for the most popular concerts were
reserved for industry insiders or pre-sale events. I want to
know why this is occurring and why some companies in the
primary market are reluctant to let consumers know about the
actual number of tickets available at the time of general sale.
The final two findings relate to ``white-label websites''
and the selling of speculative tickets. ``White-label''
websites may employ deceptive marketing practices to make
consumers believe they are purchasing tickets from an official
website when they are not. A speculative ticket refers to
instances in which a seller offers a ticket for sale on a
resale exchange before the seller has the ticket in hand. I
want to know how prevalent these practices are, how they impact
consumers, and whether the industry believes we should limit
them.
As you can see, the companies here today have a lot to
answer for. It is clear that many of their practices are
placing consumers at a disadvantage when buying tickets. I look
forward to discussing how we can put the consumer first as we
look toward finding solutions to make this industry much more
transparent.
And with that, I'll yield back and I'll recognize the
ranking member, Mr. Guthrie, from Kentucky for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEATH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. I thank you very much.
Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this hearing.
Many Americans have very fond memories of their first
concert, their first football or baseball game. I know I do. I
remember my first concert when I was 11 years old. I got to see
Elvis, and I think what I remember about it more than anything
was the effort to get tickets to see Elvis. My uncle had a
dental office right next to the facility, and they rotated.
People had to wait in long lines. As they kept adding shows, we
kept getting opportunities to see Elvis. So I had a chance to
do that.
But it's completely changed now and I know as we have
everlasting memories of these concerts, purchasing tickets for
live events can be a difficult process for consumers and
whether it's extra fees, transferability of tickets, deceptive
white label websites, or speculative tickets, all of these
issues can negatively impact the consumer experience. This is
why we wrote a bipartisan letter to six companies in November,
asking them about their policies and practices as it relates to
live event ticketing.
Some of these issues create minor annoyances or
inconveniences, such as not being able to see the total cost of
the ticket with taxes and fees until the end of the purchase
flow, but other issues can create major inconveniences, a
financial loss for consumers, such as being denied entry into
an event they potentially traveled a long distance to attend
because unbeknownst to them it turns out the ticket they bought
was not valid.
The Federal Trade Commission and States Attorneys General
are the cops on the beat when it comes to overseeing this
industry. For example, the FTC Act prohibits unfair and
deceptive acts or practices in affecting commerce, and the FTC
can enforce the act for issues related to event ticketing and
ticketing companies. And State Attorneys General have tools to
go after bad actors under their State consumers protection
laws. If bad actors, some of which we see exploiting the
secondary market, seek to deceive or mislead consumers, the FTC
and State Attorneys General can and should hold them
accountable.
In addition, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016, we
call the BOTS Act, which became law in December of 2016,
addresses tickets, and ticketing issues by prohibiting the
circumvention of the security measure, access control systems,
or other technological control measures used by online ticket
issuers.
Live events are not just for concerts. They encompass other
forms of entertainment such as theater and sporting events.
Some of the issues we plan to discuss today do not equally
apply to all events, and I think it is an important distinction
to make throughout today's discussion where applicable. For
example, with respect to ticket availability, a venue that a
team plays at such as a stadium or arena, has a static number
of tickets. In other words, you know how many seats that
stadium holds and therefore, how many tickets are available for
any given event. Conversely, with concerts, the stage and sound
system configuration vary by artist and event type, impacting
the number of seats that cannot be used because they're behind
or to the side of the stage. As a result, the number of tickets
for that type of event varies.
In addition, at today's hearing, we expect to discuss white
label websites, which are sales websites built by one company
that allows affiliates to use the software to build their own
uniquely branded websites. While white label websites are not
inherently bad, there are deceptive white label websites that
often appear as paid results of internet searches for venues
and events and contain a URL and/or language and images on a
website that are designed in a way that might mislead consumers
to think they are purchasing tickets directly from a venue or
an artist. We think that it's an important distinction to make,
as well, as we move forward in today's discussion.
Today's hearing serves as an important opportunity for us
to examine and to dive into some of those concerns and issues
that consumers face, while making the important distinctions
between event types and legitimate versus nefarious practices
and to discuss ways to better inform and protect the consumer.
The bottom line: Consumers should be able to clearly know what
they are buying, who they're buying it from, and what is
included in the price of the ticket; ensure that what they
purchase is legitimate, and will deliver to them--be delivered
to them in time for the event and is valid and will be honored
at the venue.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and being part
of this important discussion.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie
Chair DeGette, thank you for holding this hearing.
Many Americans have fond memories of their first concert,
or their first football or baseball game--I know I do. While
these events can create lasting memories, purchasing tickets
for live events can sometimes be a difficult process for
consumers. Whether it is extra fees; transferability of
tickets; deceptive white-label websites; or speculative
tickets--all of these issues can negatively impact the consumer
experience. This is why we wrote a bipartisan letter to six
companies in November asking them about their policies and
practices as it relates to live event ticketing.
Some of these issues create minor annoyances or
inconveniences, such as not being able to see the total cost of
the ticket, with taxes and fees, until the end of the purchase
flow. But other issues can create major inconveniences or
financial loss for consumers, such as being denied entry into
an event that they potentially traveled a long distance to
attend - because unbeknownst to them, it turns out the ticket
that they bought was not valid.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State Attorneys
General are the cops on the beat when it comes to overseeing
this industry. For example, the FTC Act prohibits unfair and
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, and the
FTC can enforce the act for issues related to event ticketing
and ticketing companies. And State Attorneys General have tools
to go after bad actors under their state consumer protection
laws. If bad actors--some of which we see exploiting the
secondary market--seek to deceive or mislead consumers, the FTC
and State Attorneys Generals can--and should--hold them
accountable.
In addition, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016
(The BOTS Act), which became law in December 2016, addresses
ticketing issues by prohibiting the circumvention of a security
measure, access control system, or other technological control
measure used online by a ticket issuer.
Live event tickets are just not for concerts--they
encompass other forms of entertainment such as theater and
sporting events. Some of the issues we plan to discuss today do
not equally apply to all events and I think that is an
important distinction to make throughout today's discussion,
where applicable. For example, with respect to ticket
availability--a venue that a team plays at, such as a stadium
or arena has a static number of tickets. In other words, you
know how many seats that stadium holds, and therefore how many
tickets are available for any given event. Conversely, with
concerts, the stage and sound system configuration can vary by
artist and event type, impacting the number of seats that
cannot be used because they are behind or to the side of the
stage. As a result, the number of tickets for that type of
event varies.
In addition, at today's hearing, we expect to discuss
white-label websites, which are sales websites built by one
company that allows affiliates to use the software to build
their own, uniquely branded websites. While white-label
websites are not inherently bad, there are deceptive white-
label websites that often appear as paid results of internet
searches for venues and events and contain a URL and/or
language and images on the website that are designed in a way
that might mislead consumers to think they are purchasing
tickets directly from a venue or artist. We think that is an
important distinction to make as well as we move forward with
today's discussion.
Today's hearing serves as an important opportunity for us
to examine and dive into some of these concerns and issues that
consumers face, while making the important distinctions between
event types and legitimate versus nefarious practices, and to
discuss ways to better inform and protect the consumer.
Bottom line, consumers should be able to clearly know what
they are buying, who they are buying it from, what is included
in the price of the ticket, ensure that what they purchase is
legitimate, will be delivered to them in time for the event,
and is valid and will be honored at the venue.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and being part
of this important discussion, and I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman DeGette.
Today's hearing will bring some much needed transparency to
the live event ticketing industry. Every day millions of
Americans shop on the internet for tickets for live events like
sporting events and concerts. In some ways, the internet has
made this experience more convenient, but it also has led to
consumers being ripped off as they try to navigate a ticketing
industry that, for too long, has operated in the dark.
Consumers now face a myriad of harmful practices that can
lead to them paying more for tickets or paying for tickets that
they are prohibited from selling or transferring if they're
unable to attend the event. In some instances, consumers are
not even receiving the ticket as promised after they purchased
it.
This hearing is meant not only to better understand the
many challenges consumers face in the ticketing marketplace but
to also identify steps to protect consumers from being ripped
off.
This committee has taken action in recent years to improve
the ticket buying experience for consumers. In 2016, the
committee in the House passed H.R. 5104, the Better On-Line
Ticket Sales Act of 2018, or the BOTS Act. This legislation was
signed into law later that year. It cracks down on the use of
computer programs that instantly buy up large quantities of
tickets before real people can buy them so they can later be
resold at higher prices.
Also in 2016, we asked the Government Accountability Office
to investigate consumer protection issues in the live ticketing
marketplace so that we could better understand the problem and
GAO's investigation underscored a host of challenges that
consumers face when trying to buy tickets online. For example,
they found that websites often fail to display or disclose all
the fees up front so that the total cost of a ticket can only
be known at checkout. This makes it difficult for consumers to
compare prices with other sites.
GAO also found that professional resellers have a
competitive advantage over the typical consumer attempting to
buy tickets on the primary market. This can force consumers to
the secondary market, where they may face significant price
increases. GAO also found that consumers can face deceptive
marketing practices including, websites that may look similar
to that of an official venue but instead often resell tickets
for marked-up prices.
And these are all troubling examples of how consumers are
being taken advantage of when they're just trying to purchase a
ticket for a live event. It was these continuing concerns that
led the committee last year to launch a bipartisan
investigation into the industry, and our investigation found
that the live events ticketing industry is still engaging in a
number of anticonsumer practices. Consumers still experience
hidden fees, restrictions on transferring a ticket to someone
else, and deceptive and misleading websites.
It's clear that ticketing marketplace needs reform in order
to ensure the market is transparent, fair, and working for
consumers. In order to help correct some of the problems that
still persist in the industry, last year, I joined
Representative Pascrell in sponsoring the BOSS Act. This
legislation would provide much-needed transparency and
regulations to help level the playing field for consumers.
In the meantime, we need answers to several important
questions today. We need to know what's going on to take for
ticket sellers to--what it will take really for ticket sellers
to list the total all-in price of the tickets upfront on their
platforms.
We need to know why primary market sellers refuse to inform
consumers about how many tickets are actually on sale to the
general public, and it's time the industry is transparent with
consumers about how many tickets are being held back for
industry insiders, reserved for presales, or placed directly on
the secondary market at a higher price.
We also need to know what additional disclosures are needed
to protect consumers from potential deception or outright fraud
by white label websites and the sale of speculative tickets.
And, finally, we need to know why hurdles and restrictions
continue to be put in place for those looking to transfer
tickets.
So it's time we finally bring transparency to this
marketplace so that we can protect consumers which, of course,
is always our primary goal.
And unless somebody else wants my time, I'm going to yield
back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today's hearing will bring some much-needed transparency to
the live event ticketing industry.
Every day, millions of Americans shop on the internet for
tickets for live events like sporting events and concerts. In
some ways, the internet has made this experience more
convenient, but it has also led to consumers being ripped off
as they try to navigate a ticketing industry that for too long
has operated in the dark. Consumers now face a myriad of
harmful practices that can lead to them paying more for tickets
or paying for tickets that are prohibited from reselling or
transferring if they are unable to attend the event. In some
instances, consumers are not even receiving the ticket as
promised after they purchased it.
This hearing is meant to not only better understand the
many challenges consumers face in the ticketing marketplace,
but to also identify steps to protect consumers from being
ripped off. This Committee has taken action in recent years to
improve the ticket buying experience for consumers.
In 2016, the Committee and the House passed H.R. 5104, the
``Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016,'' or the ``BOTS
Act.'' This legislation was signed into law later that year. It
cracks down on the use of computer programs that instantly buy
up large quantities of tickets--before real people can buy
them--so that they can later be resold at higher prices.
Also, in 2016, we asked the Government Accountability
Office to investigate consumer protection issues in the live
event ticketing marketplace so that we could better understand
the problem.
GAO's investigation underscored a host of challenges that
consumers face when trying to buy tickets online. For example,
they found that websites often fail to display or disclose all
of the fees upfront, so that the total cost of a ticket can
only be known at checkout. This makes it difficult for
consumers to compare prices with other sites. GAO also found
that professional resellers have a competitive advantage over
the typical consumer attempting to buy tickets on the primary
market. This can force consumers to the secondary market, where
they may face significant price increases.
GAO also found that consumers can face deceptive marketing
practices, including websites that may look similar to that of
an official venue, but instead often resell tickets for marked
up prices.
These are all troubling examples of how consumers are being
taken advantage of when they are just trying to purchase a
ticket for a live event.
It was these continuing concerns that led the Committee
last year to launch a bipartisan investigation into the
industry. Our investigation found that the live events
ticketing industry is still engaging in a number of anti-
consumer practices. Consumers still experience hidden fees
restrictions on transferring a ticket to someone else and
deceptive and misleading websites. It is clear that the
ticketing marketplace needs reforms in order to ensure the
market is transparent, fair and working for consumers.
In order to help correct some of the problems that still
persist in the industry, last year, I joined Representative
Pascrell in sponsoring the ``BOSS Act.'' This legislation would
provide much needed transparency and regulation to help level
the playing field for consumers.
In the meantime, we need answers to several important
questions today. We need to know what it's going to take for
ticket sellers to list the total, all-in price of the tickets
upfront on their platforms.
We need to know why primary market sellers refuse to inform
consumers about how many tickets are actually on sale to the
general public. It's time the industry is transparent with
consumers about how many tickets are being held back for
industry insiders, reserved for presales, or placed directly on
the secondary market at a higher price.
We need to know what additional disclosures are needed to
protect consumers from potential deception or outright fraud by
white label websites and the sale of speculative tickets.
And, finally, we need to know why hurdles and restrictions
continue to be put into place for those looking to transfer
tickets.
It's time we finally bring transparency to this marketplace
so that we can protect consumers.
Ms. DeGette. The chairman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Madam Chair, and welcome to all
our witnesses and guests. Thank you all for being here.
As the--as Ranking Member Guthrie mentioned, purchasing
tickets to a live event is something we can all relate to.
Live--I didn't know he was 11 when he saw Elvis, though.
That's--yes. Wow, you're old.
Live entertainment, whether it's a--whether it's a concert,
a theater event, or a sporting event can lead to once-in-a-
lifetime experiences that create lasting memories. However, a
lack of transparency or deceptive acts and/or fraud in the
industry can cause a lot of frustration to say the least, in
some cases, financial harm to consumers.
Some of these issues include deceptive white label
websites--you've heard about that--speculative tickets,
fraudulent tickets, to name just a few. I look forward to
hearing what the six companies before us today are doing about
that and what you're doing to combat some of these issues,
protect consumers, and ensure consumer satisfaction.
As Mr. Guthrie mentioned, it's important we keep in mind
distinctions with ticket availability issues, different types
of white label websites, and more. But it's equally important
that we balance consumer protection with potentially unintended
consequences, too, to the industry that will ultimately
negatively impact consumers as we explore potential solutions
to some of these issues.
For example, a 2018 U.S. Government Accountability Office
report that was requested by, as you heard, the bipartisan
leaders of the committee on event ticket sales and market
characteristics and consumer protection issues noted that there
are advantages and disadvantages to certain practices and in
some cases, it's unclear whether new requirements would
introduce new compliance challenges for the ticketing industry
such as requiring companies to disclose proprietary
information.
Therefore, it's important that this subcommittee gathers
all the information necessary and the facts before determining
what the potential solutions may be to further enhance consumer
protection within the industry.
Furthermore, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016,
known as the BOTS Act, was signed into law in 2016, yet neither
the Federal Trade Commission nor the States have taken
enforcement action under this statute to date. In addition to
the issues outlined in the committee's bipartisan letter sent
to the six companies in November, it would be helpful to hear
from you-all before us today whether you see bots as an issue
in the industry now and how, if at all, it is harmful to
consumers, so the issue of bots.
I understand bad actors utilizing bots to game our system
may be beyond our borders. That does not mean they are beyond
our reach. I'm proud of this committee's leadership on
extending the U.S. SAFE WEB Act that reaffirms the FTC's
ability to hold foreign bad actors accountable. As with many
problems, there's no easy fix and that's probably true with
this as well.
This committee should work with the FTC, the Federal Trade
Commission, as part of our investigation to figure out how we
can address not only this bots issue but also other ticket
issues that present create harm to consumers.
The most important thing to keep in mind across the issues
that will be discussed today is the need for transparency and
appropriate disclosures to consumers and, if there's adequate
transparency, consumers will then have the necessary
information they need in order to make an informed decision
about whether or not they want to purchase a live event ticket,
who they want to purchase the ticket from, and what kind of
ticket they want to purchase and what the breakdown is for the
total cost of the ticket including taxes and fees.
For example, if a consumer knows that a ticket's
dynamically priced and knows what it means for a ticket to be
dynamically priced, it should then be left to the consumer to
decide whether or not they want to purchase a dynamically
priced ticket. In addition, the limits placed on a ticket that
designates whether the ticket's transferable or not should be
clearly disclosed to consumers before the consumer purchases
the ticket so that that consumer understands the limitations
placed on the ticket to help avoid possible frustration and
financial loss down the road.
So, again, I want to thank you-all for being here today,
testifying before the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.
I look forward to listening to your testimony and working with
my colleagues here on the committee on both sides to ensure
that we make fully informed decisions that enhance consumer
protection.
So with that, Madam Chair, I would yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Chair DeGette, thank you for holding this hearing.
As Ranking Member Guthrie mentioned, purchasing tickets to
a live event is something that we can all relate to. Live
entertainment, whether it is a concert, theater event, or a
sporting event, can lead to once in a lifetime experiences that
create lasting memories. However, a lack of transparency,
deceptive acts, and/or fraud in this industry can cause
frustration and, in some cases, financial harm to consumers.
Some of the issues include deceptive white-label websites,
speculative tickets, and fraudulent tickets, to name a few. I
look forward to hearing what the six companies before us today
are doing to combat some of these issues, protect their
consumers, and ensure customer satisfaction.
As Ranking Member Guthrie mentioned, it is important that
we keep in mind distinctions with ticket availability issues,
different types of white label websites, and more. But, it is
equally important that we balance consumer protection with
potentially unintended consequencesto the industry that will
ultimately impact consumers as we explore potential solutions
to some of these issues.
For example, a 2018 U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report that was requested by bipartisan leaders of this
Committee on event ticket sales and the market characteristics
and consumer protection issues noted that there are advantages
and disadvantages to certain practices, and in some cases, it
is unclear whether new requirements would introduce new
compliance challenges for the ticketing industry, such as
requiring companies to disclose proprietary information.
Therefore, it is important that this Subcommittee gather all
the necessary facts before determining what the potential
solutions may be to ensure consumer protection within the
industry.
Furthermore, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016
(BOTS Act) was signed into law in 2016, yet neither the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) nor the states have taken enforcement
action under this statute to date. In addition to the issues
outlined in the Committee's bipartisan letter sent to the six
companies in November, it would be helpful to hear from the
companies testifying before us today whether they still see
bots as an issue in the industry and how, if at all, it is
harmful to consumers.
I understand bad actors utilizing bots to game our system
may be beyond our borders, but that does not mean they are
beyond our reach. I am proud of this Committee's leadership on
extending the U.S. SAFE WEB Act that reaffirms the FTC's
ability to hold foreign bad actors accountable. As with many
problems, there is no easy fix to this one either. This
Committee should work with the FTC as part of our investigation
to figure out how we can address not only this bots issue, but
other ticket issues that present concrete harms to consumers.
The most important thing to keep in mind across all the
issues that will be discussed today is the need for
transparency and appropriate disclosures to consumers. If there
is adequate transparency, consumers will then have the
necessary information they need in order to make an informed
decision about whether or not they want to purchase a live
event ticket; who they want to purchase the ticket from; what
kind of ticket they want to purchase; and what the breakdown is
for the total cost of the ticket, including taxes and fees.
For example, if a consumer knows that a ticket is
dynamically priced and knows what it means for a ticket to be
dynamically priced, it should then be left to the consumer to
decide whether or not they want to purchase a dynamically
priced ticket. In addition, the limits placed on a ticket that
designate whether the ticket is transferrable or not should be
clearly disclosed to a consumer before the consumer purchases
the ticket so that the consumer understands the limitations
placed on the ticket, to help avoid possible frustration and
financial loss down the road.
I want to thank the companies before us today for agreeing
to testify before the Subcommittee. I look forward to listening
to the testimony of the witnesses and working with our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ensure that we
make fully informed decisions to protect consumers. I yield
back.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman yields back, and that concludes
the opening statements.
I ask unanimous consent that Members' written opening
statements be made a part of the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now want to introduce our witnesses for today's hearing,
and I want to thank all of you for coming today: Ms. Amy Howe,
who's the President and Chief Operating Officer; Ticketmaster,
Mr. Brian Perez, who's the Chief Executive Officer, AXS, Ms.
Stephanie Burns, Vice President and General Counsel, StubHub,
Mr. Ryan Fitts, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Vivid Seats, Mr.
Don Vaccaro, Founder and Chief Executive, TicketNetwork, and
Mr. Joe Choti, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Tickets.com.
Again, thanks to all of you and I know all of you are aware
the committee's holding an investigative hearing and, when
doing so, we have the practice of taking our testimony under
oath.
Does anyone object to testifying under oath today?
Let the record reflect the witnesses have responded ``no.''
The Chair then advises you that under the rules of the
House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
accompanied by counsel. Does any of you desire to be
accompanied by counsel today?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have responded
``no.''
So, if you would, please, rise and raise your right hand so
you may be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. DeGette. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect the witnesses responded
affirmatively, and you're now under oath and subject to the
penalties set forth in Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code.
The Chair now recognizes our witnesses for a 5-minute
summary of each of their written statements. In front of you is
a microphone, a timer, and a series of lights. The timer will
count down your light, and the red light will turn on when your
5 minutes has expired.
So now I'd first like to recognize you, Ms. Howe, for 5
minutes for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF AMY HOWE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
TICKETMASTER; BRYAN PEREZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AXS;
STEPHANIE BURNS, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, STUBHUB;
RYAN FITTS, VICE PRESIDENT, LEGAL AFFAIRS, VIVID SEATS; DON
VACCARO, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TICKETNETWORK;
AND JOE CHOTI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TICKETS.COM
TESTIMONY OF AMY HOWE
Ms. Howe. Good morning.
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, Chair DeGette,
Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Amy Howe, and I'm the president and chief
operating officer of Ticketmaster, North America. As a leader
in the live event ticketing industry, we share your interest in
improving the ticketing ecosystem to better protect consumers.
Before addressing the specifics of these important issues, I'd
like to offer some important context.
The live entertainment industry is like no other. It's all
about once-in-a-lifetime experiences to draw the most
passionate fans.
Ms. DeGette. Excuse me, Ms. Howe, if you can just move that
microphone a little closer----
Ms. Howe. Is that better?
Ms. DeGette. We're been having problems with them dropping
off. That's better. Thank you.
Ms. Howe. Thank you.
To draw the most passionate fans on Earth to unforgettable
moments in time. As we like to say, life only happens once. It
sounds simple, but it helps remind our team that for each fan
we serve, we have only one chance to get it right. We want the
fan experience to be memorable and, importantly, simple, safe,
and transparent. We do our best every day to deliver on this
promise and keep Ticketmaster free from the unethical and
illegal activities that hurt consumers.
The greatest challenge is simply supply and demand. Even in
the world's biggest venues, events have limited capacity. This
imbalance naturally causes disappointment for fans who are
unable to get tickets and unfortunately, opportunity for bad
actors to prosper.
We invest millions of dollars annually to protecting our
platform so fans, clients, and brokers can avoid issues created
by bad actors and engage within a legitimate, reliable
ticketing marketplace. Unfortunately, there will always be
those who want to cheat the system, take advantage of fans, and
give our industry a bad name. The committee has rightly called
out many of these tactics: Deceptive websites, speculative
tickets, bots, and lack of transparency, amongst others.
When we received the committee's November inquiry, we saw
that we have many of the same concerns. As we've shared with
the committee, Ticketmaster bans speculative ticketing on our
platform, we report deceptive websites, we combat bots, and we
support all-in pricing. Let me quickly touch on each of these.
A leading obstacle to fans' ability to access tickets
fairly is the proliferation of sophisticated consumer
automation, or bots, which accesses thousands of tickets to
resell them to fans at staggering prices. Forty percent of
activity on ticketing sites today is automated, with nearly 70
percent of that traffic here in the U.S. alone.
Since 2018, Ticketmaster has blocked over 30 billion bot
purchase attempts. We do this because we fundamentally believe
tickets should go to fans at a price determined by the artist.
We've also developed innovative technologies like Verified Fan
and Smart Queue to weed out bots and bad actors and we
supported the 2016 BOTS Act, which made bots illegal.
Despite the massive investments we've made to help fans get
fair access to tickets, we know this alone will not solve the
problem which is why we strongly support bolstering the BOTS
Act with more rigorous enforcement.
Second, speculative ticketing, which is when professional
sellers offer tickets they don't have and may never have, is
commonplace. Earlier this month The Rolling Stones announced
their tour dates and within minutes, before the band had even
released those tickets to the general public, hundreds of spec
tickets were available on other resale marketplaces, some
upwards of $3,000, or 7 times face value. Ticketmaster's resale
policy prohibits spec tickets, we actively remove them from our
site, and we support mandated disclosures or banning the
practice all together.
Next, if you Google Rolling Stones tickets, you'll likely
find official-looking ticket sites which are deceptive and
misleading. These sites are actually fronts for resellers
trying to trick fans into believing they're buying primary
tickets when, in fact, what is being offered are inflated
resale tickets. Ticketmaster bans and reports deceptive URLs
and to ensure transparency on our marketplace, if we aren't the
primary ticketer, we link to the official box office, a best
practice we feel should be adopted industrywide.
Last, what consumers may not know is that every ticket we
sell is owned by the event organizer and artist's team or venue
and not by Ticketmaster. Event organizers determine pricing,
fee structures, and on-sale strategies. Then we support and
implement those decisions. What everyone does know is that
their total ticket price is the face-plus fees but that total
should be disclosed from the outset, not at the end of the
purchase process, which is why we support legislative,
mandating, industrywide all-in pricing and believe that there
should be robust enforcement of this requirement.
As a leader of our company, I work alongside more than
3,000 dedicated employees who work tirelessly every day to
provide a safe, reliable, and transparent experience for our
fans and this is why we are here today, to share our approach
and challenges, to hear your perspective, and to work together
to identify legislative and regulatory solutions to improve the
ticketing ecosystem.
I truly appreciate the opportunity to discuss these
important issues and look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Howe follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. I thank you, Ms. Howe.
I'm now pleased to recognize Mr. Perez for 5 minutes. Mr.
Perez.
TESTIMONY OF BRYAN PEREZ
Mr. Perez. Good morning, Chair DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Your microphone.
Mr. Perez. Good morning. Thank you.
Chair DeGette, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Members Guthrie
and Walden, and other distinguished members, my name is Brian
Perez and I am the CEO of AXS, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Anschutz Entertainment Group, a leading sports and live
entertainment company.
AEG is a privately held company that operates domestically
and internationally across a number of segments within the live
entertainment and sports industry, including AEG Real Estate,
AEG Sports, AEG Presents, and AXS Ticketing.
AXS Ticketing provides primary and resale ticketing
technology and services as the official authorized agent of
various sports teams, venues, and live event promoters. I've
been in the live entertainment business for over 20 years,
having previously held positions at the NBA, Live Nation, the
NHL's Dallas Stars, and Madison Square Garden.
I'd like to thank you for inviting me to testify at today's
hearing, examining policies and practices in the live event
ticketing industry. Our industry is one of world-class
experiences and memories of a lifetime, and I appreciate the
opportunity to provide our perspective on a business that
impacts so many of your constituents. We are fortunate to work
in this business, to be able to play some small part in these
magical moments, and we fight every day to help our clients
create a better fan experience because we are fans, too.
And I applaud the initiative of this hearing as I believe
our shared goal is to get tickets into the hands of real fans
at fair prices in a seamless, secure, and clear purchase
experience.
Unfortunately, many of these events are limited in capacity
and face excess demand and, even though artists often try to
set a fair price that is available to fans from all walks of
life, they are frustrated in their efforts by bad actors
chasing profits, often using illegal practices to purchase
tickets before the honest fan has a chance.
When paired with two of the most insidious practices to
arise in our industry recently, speculative tickets and
deceptive websites, it's no wonder that the consumer is left
feeling disillusioned and out of luck. I'm thankful for the
opportunity today to discuss how we're using technology in
business practices to combat these bad actors.
I also believe that thoughtful legislation with aggressive
enforcement can have a positive impact on curbing these
practices. Thoughtful legislation and aggressive enforcement
can also help level the playing field between primary and
resale marketplaces, ensuring that we are all playing by the
same rules, so that fans are more easily able to understand
their options and the prices they are paying.
We support all-in pricing at the outset of the purchase
transaction as long as it is applied equally and uniformly to
all ticket sellers and marketplaces. As we have seen, if there
is any wiggle room, bad actors will find a way to exploit it
against the innocent consumer in the name of profiteering.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
the committee today and for your assistance in helping fans
attend events at a fair price and in a fair manner. I look
forward to answering your questions. And as the committee
grapples with legislative solutions, AEG looks forward to being
engaged in that process with you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Burns for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHANIE BURNS
Ms. Burns. Good morning.
Chair DeGette, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Guthrie,
and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to participate in this important hearing.
StubHub shares the subcommittee's commitment to consumer
protections and applauds your effort to look at the industry
holistically on behalf of fans. StubHub was founded in 2000 and
revolutionized secondary ticket sales by providing fans a safe,
transparent, and trusted marketplace to buy and sell tickets
online.
StubHub has more than 130 partnerships with major sports
leagues, universities, teams, venues, and artists around the
world. Every transaction on StubHub is protected by our
industry-leading FanProtect guarantee. In those rare instances
when there is something wrong with the ticket purchased on
StubHub, we will provide a comparable or better replacement
ticket or, in the limited instances where that is not possible,
we provide a full refund inclusive of fees. StubHub's
FanProtect guarantee is the hallmark of our business, and it is
why we have earned the trust of fans.
Our mission is to connect fans to the joy of live events. A
fair, secure, and competitive ticket marketplace is in the best
interest of fans. In recent years our mission has been
complicated by anticompetitive and anticonsumer practices. Many
of these issues were identified by the committee during its
investigation. I'll touch on three of these issues today,
including transferability, transparency, and deceptive URLs.
First and most importantly for consumers is
transferability. Fans should always have the option to purchase
a freely transferable ticket at the initial point of sale.
Primary ticket issuers are using terms and conditions in
technology to place downstream restrictions on the tickets that
fans have rightfully purchased. With ticket restrictions,
ticket issuers can single-handedly eliminate consumer choice
and foreclose competition.
For over three decades, Ticketmaster has been a dominant
primary ticket issuer, accounting for approximately 80 percent
of tickets sold. What you may not realize is that Ticketmaster
is also a prominent secondary ticket resale platform.
Ticketmaster is increasingly using its dominance in primary
ticketing to extend its dominance to secondary ticket sales,
which harms consumers. Here's how.
Through its SafeTix technology, Ticketmaster is able to
disable ticket transferability completely or limit
transferability solely to its proprietary platforms.
Ticketmaster is using this technology to force consumers who
purchase resale tickets on competing sites to complete the
transaction within their own app. This means that consumers who
elect to buy tickets on StubHub are forced to register with
Ticketmaster, download the Ticketmaster app, and provide their
personal data to Ticketmaster to receive their tickets. This
practice is a blatant data grab. It has been reported that
Ticketmaster will apply SafeTix technology to all of its ticket
sales by 2021. This is why Congress must act now.
Secondly, transparency. Bots are often blamed as the reason
why fans have difficult accessing tickets. Thankfully Congress
addressed this issue in the 2016 BOTS Act. StubHub proudly
supported this effort. Bots are not the only reason why fans
have difficult accessing tickets. In fact, large percentages of
tickets are never made available to sale to the general public.
According to a report by the New York Attorney General's office
in 2016, an average of 54 percent of tickets are held back for
events.
The average number of tickets made available to the public
falls to 25 percent for top concerts and was noted to be as low
as 12 percent for one concert at Madison Square Garden. In some
instances, tickets are held back from the initial on-sale,
gradually released, and often dynamically priced to reflect the
current market rate, which may be higher than the original on-
sale. Consumers deserve to know that ticket issuers are
manipulating the release of ticket supply, resulting in higher
prices.
Lastly, deceptive URLs. When you buy a ticket through
StubHub, you buy it on StubHub.com. StubHub does not own or
operate deceptive URLs, also known as white label sites. White
labels are deceptive because they mislead consumers into
believing they are affiliated with the venue, artist, or team
when they are not. StubHub encourages the committee to
investigate the fullest of harms associated with white label
sites and stands ready to assist.
StubHub is committed to partnering with policymakers and
industry stakeholders to promote a safe, transparent, and
competitive live event ticketing industry to benefit fans
across the globe.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and
for your consideration of our comments. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. I thank you, Ms. Burns.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize Mr. Fitts for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF RYAN FITTS
Mr. Fitts. Good morning.
Chair DeGette, Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on
behalf of Vivid Seats.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Fitts, I'm also going to ask to you move
the microphone close. Thanks.
Mr. Fitts. Those of us fortunate enough to work at Vivid
Seats aren't just employees. We're fans as well, and the fan
experience is at the center of everything we do. We are
committed to working with you to foster innovation, promote
competition, protect fans in the ticket marketplace. That is
why we are pleased to announce our support for proposals that
would prohibit undisclosed speculative ticket sales, prohibit
deceptive marketing practices by white label websites, and
require upfront, all-in pricing at a level playing field.
And, significantly, we believe that the cornerstone of any
congressional action in this industry must focus on protecting
fans' rights to buy and sell tickets, when, where, and how they
wish. This essential fan protection, known as transferability,
has already been enacted by Colorado and by other States and no
State has taken this right away. Importantly, it's opposed only
by primary ticket sellers with market power who are trying to
tighten their grip on tickets by restricting transferability
which would leave fans with fewer choices and higher prices.
The ticketing marketplace today is a tale of two channels,
a resale channel that has seen the vibrant competition and
progress and a primary channel that has not. Vivid Seats,
operates in the resale channel. I would like to take just a
minute to note how far we have come.
As I'm sure many of you will remember, the resale market
looked very different before Vivid Seats and companies like it
came on the scene. Back then fans who were not fortunate enough
to get a ticket through the primary seller had no safe and
convenient way to obtain tickets, and fans who had tickets but
could not use them had no safe and convenient way to sell them.
Many fans had to resort to unsecured channels like
unverified Internet listings or back alley sales where
counterfeit tickets were all too common. I remember back in the
nineties trying to buy Cubs tickets on a street corner, never
able to compare choices and always worried I was being sold a
fake ticket. Vivid Seats was created to solve this problem.
Today, if fans want to buy a ticket at the last minute for
an event that's otherwise sold out, our platform allows them to
do. If fans have tickets that they cannot use, maybe something
came up at work on a sudden illness, fans can sell those
tickets on our platform and recover their costs. And every
ticket sold on our platform is covered with a hundred percent
industry-leading buyer guarantee.
We promise a valid ticket delivered on time and as
described or your money back. If a fan has any questions or
encounters any issues, we'll quickly provide a response from
our 300-person call center that typically connects fans with
live support in less than a minute.
We're very proud that Newsweek recently named us to its
list of America's best companies for customer service, ranking
us No. 1 in the ticketing industry, and we're also proud to
have been chosen as the official partner for a host of well-
known teams and brands including ESPN, the University of
Colorado, the LA Clippers, the Chicago Bears, and many more.
Today Visit Seats competes vigorously in a vibrant
secondary ticket channel which includes many of the companies
represented on the panel with me today, and let me be clear. We
love competition. It challenges us all to innovate and to
strive to provide fans the best value. At Vivid Seats we think
of new ways to rise to this channel every single day.
The scene is different in the primary channel, where only
one company wields extensive control. That kind of market power
can be abused in ways that hurt fans. Fans who try to purchase
tickets from the primary seller often find that sales are
limited to a short on-sale period with limited seating options
typically held weeks or months in advance of the event.
Fans are hurt when the primary seller restricts the
transferability of tickets. As is the case with most property,
a ticket belongs to the fan who holds it. They should be able
to transfer that ticket on the platform of their choice. By
restricting transferability, primary sellers exert even more
control over the marketplace, essentially mandating that
tickets become available from one source and one source only.
Understanding the threat, the transferability restrictions
posed for consumers, states including Colorado, Connecticut,
Illinois, New York, Virginia, and Utah have enacted pro-
consumer laws guaranteeing fans the right to resell tickets. We
urge Congress to do the same.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
hearing, and Vivid Seats looks forward to working with Congress
to create the best experiences possible for fans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitts follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. I thank you, Mr. Fitts.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Vaccaro for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DON VACCARO
Mr. Vaccaro. Good morning, Chairman DeGette, Ranking Member
Guthrie, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name
is Don Vaccaro, and I am the chief executive officer of Ticket
Network. I thank you for inviting me today to share information
about our company and the ticketing industry.
Consumers deserve fair and equitable access to live
entertainment events but face increasing difficulty in finding
them. In response to the committee's questions, we have
outlined a number of issues that exist and proposed remedies to
fix them. They can be summarized in three key needs:
Transferability, disclosure, and freedom. When tickets go on
sale, there's nothing about the process that is clear for
consumers. For starters, the supposed on-sale date for the
general public is far from the first day tickets are available.
Presales for various groups are spread throughout the
ticket process. Often huge portions of unpurchased tickets are
hidden, creating the illusion of scarcity during both presales
and general on-sales.
Consumers' fear of missing out are triggered when in really
there are thousands of additional tickets waiting to be posted.
These practices deceive consumers about ticket availability and
keep prices high. These held-back tickets are dripped into the
regular market down the road or sold directly through secondary
websites.
The lack of transparency in the sales process is the
biggest factor contributing to price inflation and ticketing.
Clear disclosure of ticket prices and fees are hard to come by,
both on the primary and secondary market.
Primary sellers often ply dynamic prices that move up
during periods of high demand in tandem with false scarcity of
inventory. This means that very few consumers have any hope of
securing tickets at the published face value. Those prices are
subject to enormous undisclosed fees that draw the overwhelming
majority of consumer complaints, as evidenced by submissions to
the FTC in advance of their hearing on tickets in June 2019.
Which, according to our sample, more than 85 percent of the
consumers' main issue was hidden fees, extra charges, and
deceptive price advertising. The next largest issue was floor
pricing and transferability.
Some websites impose floor prices and coordinate those with
sellers. Those floors artificially inflate prices and harm
consumers who bought tickets and can no longer attend.
FTC Commissioner Slaughter gave clear direction to ticket
sellers to disclose fees up front or the FTC would intervene.
We heeded her warning. Ticket Network has never allowed floor
pricing and is leading the way in developing retail websites
that don't trick consumers using high and hidden fees.
Ninety-nine percent of our retail websites, we offer
consumers the option to view all-in prices including fees
before any personal viable information is consumed. We also
have approximately 30 percent of our websites charge no service
fees at all to the consumer and it's baked in, giving consumers
a true transparent solution.
We believe that this model is a model for the industry. We
also believe that there's no necessity for legislation for
folks in this industry to do the right thing. We can do it now.
But perhaps the most egregious consumer abuse are systems
that restrict the availability for consumers to transfer and
resale tickets while simultaneously harboring an enormous
amount of consumer data to sell to marketers and suppressing
the ability of some classes of consumers from even
participating in the process.
In summary, there are several commonsense measures that can
vastly improve the customer experience. Transferability,
transparency, and disclosure are the keys, rather than the
ever-increasing concentration of market power in this
individual in the hands of a few bad actors.
Thankfully there's a proposed solution out there. The BOSS
Act from Representative Pallone, Pascrell, and Senator
Blumenthal, on balance, it protects competition and takes vital
steps for a more consumer-friendly experience and that's
something we're striving for.
And just to echo, it's all about the consumers, hopefully.
It's not about us. It's what's best for the consumers that's
going to make this industry better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaccaro follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Vaccaro.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Choti for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JOE CHOTI
Mr. Choti. Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished
members of the committee. My name is Joe Choti, and I'm the
chief executive officer and president of Tickets.com.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing and contribute to the committee's efforts to improve
the transparency and ensure fairness for our consumers in live
event ticketing industry.
Tickets.com is a technology company whose core product is
the primary ticketing platform known as ProVenue. ProVenue
serves as the core of a comprehensive suite of products and
services that are utilized by over 250 United States client
organizations that sell primary tickets, their primary tickets,
on their own brand in their own box office and through online
measures.
While client organizations solely establish the policies
and practices for a ticket sold through ProVenue, Tickets.com
provides an array of technological features and functionality
that allows venues to create events, establish ticket
quantities, create and adjust pricing, list availability, and
establish and display fees, all designed to enhance the
patrons' live event ticketing experiences that can be utilized
to address consumer protection concerns identified at this
morning's committee.
Tickets.com is constantly striving to improve and innovate
patrons' live event ticketing experiences. We look forward to
working with the committee towards our mutual goals. Hopefully,
today's panel can be a step forward in that direction. I thank
you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your
questions later on this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Choti follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
It's now time for members to ask you questions, and the
Chair will recognize herself for five minutes.
Ms. Burns, the 2016 New York Attorney General report that
you referenced in your testimony found that the industry's use
of holdbacks and presales restrict consumers' access to
tickets. In fact, for some popular concerts, an average of 54
percent of tickets were held back for industry insiders, fan
clubs, credit card presales, artists, and other sources,
according to the report.
In your testimony, you said that ticket holdbacks are a
major contributor to the limited number of face-value tickets
available to the general public.
If you can tell me, Ms. Burns, very briefly, how prevalent
are those hold banks in the ticketing industry and why should
consumers care about them?
Ms. Burns. Well, the holdbacks are an issue in our industry
because it limits supply.
Ms. DeGette. Right. How prevalent are they?
Ms. Burns. They're prevalent. Just in terms of how
prevalent, I couldn't give you a figure but they're incredibly
prevalent. It's a common practice of primary ticket issuers,
but it's an issue for consumers because it limits supply.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Ms. Burns. Right? And when you have limited supply and you
have especially for events that are high in demand, it creates
a false sense of scarcity and over time, as those tickets are
trickled out, can result in higher prices for fans than if they
were originally offered just all at once.
It also limits access to fans who, you know, you want to
purchase those tickets and the lack of transparency is just,
you know, an issue in the industry in general.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Ms. Howe, from your--from your perspective, how many of the
concerts that are or the events that you sell do you have the
holdbacks in the range of 54 percent, that type of range?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for the question, Chair DeGette.
Let me clarify some misconceptions. I want to try to tease
apart holds from presales for a minute. True holds, which are
effectively tickets that the artist is holding back for friends
and family, VIP, and in some cases promotions, are single
digits. There's no incentive for the artist to want to hold
that inventory back. When they're going on sale and 90 percent
of their marketing dollars are being spent at the on-sale, they
want to get that inventory out there.
Ms. DeGette. So you just don't agree with what the----
Ms. Howe. I don't agree respectfully.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I want to go back to you, Ms. Burns,
because you talked about ticket transferability and what you
said in your written testimony is arguments in support of
transfer restrictions was a smoke screen. Can you tell me why
that you hold that--why that's your perspective?
Ms. Burns. Yes. So I believe what you may be referring to
is the argument of fraud being used as a justification for
limits on transferability. We believe that's a smoke screen
because, if you look at the incidents of fraud, it's actually
quite low in the ticketing industry, especially as we move
towards mobile ticketing.
So, it's really the issue here is using technology really
to hold consumers captive when they purchase a ticket so that
if they want to resell that ticket, they're forced to do so
through the platform or the mobile system of the primary
issuer.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
And Ms. Howe, what's your perspective on that?
Ms. Howe. If you believe that five million fraudulent
tickets a year are low, we would disagree with that.
The issue around transferability is--let me clarify. This
is a very small percentage of events that use nontransferable
tickets today. When it's used, it is used for a very consumer-
friendly practice which is to get tickets into the hands of
real fans at below-market prices. So Pearl Jam most recently,
many of you are familiar with, is using this and what we're
seeing, if you look at those States that allow artists to
restrict transfer, Pearl Jam is selling a 98-dollar ticket, 5-
dollar charitable fee, and there's virtually no inventory on
the resale market.
In those two States, New York and Colorado, where they've
pulled that right away from the artist, you're seeing thousands
of tickets on the secondary market for $7,000. So----
Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you. I have just a few minutes left,
and I have one more question for everybody.
Which of your--do any of your businesses sell these white
label tickets, engage in this? Let the record reflect everybody
has--oh, Mr. Vaccaro.
Mr. Vaccaro. I apologize. We have multiple definitions of
what a white label site is.
Ms. DeGette. You got to turn your mike on.
Mr. Vaccaro. I apologize. We have multiple different
definitions of what a white label site is. I can go into it
with you but basically, we allow consumers, as well as other
folks here, to sell tickets on a website that's branded to
them.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Would you agree that we need more
disclosure of these sites so consumers know where they're
buying their tickets?
Mr. Vaccaro. I would answer that----
Ms. DeGette. You just said you support this bill.
Mr. Vaccaro. I supported the bill and I think we have
enough and I think the disclosures comply with what the FTC
said and I'll--
Ms. DeGette. OK. I'm out of time. Thanks.
Does everybody else agree? Just--does anybody disagree that
we need more controls on these white label sites? No. OK.
Everybody agrees.
Mr. Guthrie, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. I appreciate the ranking
member of the full committee thinking I'm too young to have
seen Elvis, but that was 1975. I have a question----
Ms. DeGette. End of his career----
Mr. Guthrie. End of--yes, it was 1975, a couple of years
before he passed unfortunately.
Can you briefly describe, each of you--and I only have a
few minutes. So, I want to make sure I--so ``briefly'' is the
right word--the type of business model. I know you have a
primary market, secondary market, white label software, et
cetera; what type of market you guys operate in and if any
affiliates operate as the marketplace? I know Ticketmaster's in
this category. I don't know if the others--I know, Mr. Choti,
you might be but you have a primary and secondary and, if you
do, how do those interact with each other?
So Ms. Howe and then I'll go down the list----
Ms. Howe. Correct. Thank you for your question. We have a
primary market. The business models, we compete for the
exclusive rights to ticket a venue and the fees which are
shared and split with the venue, go to providing an important
service which is protecting our consumers in the marketplace
and making sure we can get them in safely.
We also compete in the secondary market. We are a number
three player. So we have a much smaller share of secondary
market, and we got into that because we thought it was
important for us to be able to provide a safe and transparent
way for consumers to buy all tickets, both primary and
secondary.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez. Similar to Ticketmaster, we operate in the
primary segment where we're the authorized agent for the
initial release of tickets for sports teams, venues, and event
promoters. We also operate a resale platform that's integrated
with the primary. So all tickets that are sold on our resale
platform are ones that we've issued originally. So they're
verified, canceled, and reissued directly to the purchaser.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Ms. Burns.
Ms. Burns. We are at our core a marketplace, so a secondary
ticketing marketplace, and we have relationships with--where
we're the official secondary partner for leagues, teams.
We also have a primary business. It's a very small portion
of our business. We have experienced challenges with trying to
break into primary ticketing when we're up against a competitor
that has an 80 percent market share.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Mr. Fitts.
Mr. Fitts. We operate a resale marketplace called
vividseats.com where buyers and sellers are put together to vie
for tickets. We offer a wide variety, and people can compete on
prices and understand what the full amount inventory available
on resource is.
We also offer a technology solution called Ticket
Fulfillment Services which sells fulfillment solutions to
companies that want to provide tickets to their consumers such
as Capital One, such as Groupon, American Airlines, and Caesars
Entertainment.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. So, Mr. Vaccaro, just to give you a
chance to answer more of the question more because none of them
previously did. The white label, so you were talking about how
you have branded.
White label has a lot of different definitions. It doesn't
necessarily mean bad. So if you have a chance to talk about
your business practice in that area, if you can turn the mic. I
am sorry.
Mr. Vaccaro. Thank you. For the Armed Forces, we have a
website called armedforcestravel.com. So what we do is we power
that engine which is owned by the government, to give military
members tickets with no service charges and no shipping fees.
OK. So we're the official provider for them. We provide them
that website.
I was hearing about the other folks here and anyone who
wants a website we will help them or we would help them out
with the back end, providing them fulfillment services for
those websites. Each deal is different. Some people market
their own websites. Some people we provide more functionality
to and less.
But, you know, just to be clear, I think a lot of other
folks here might be more involved in white label type websites
than they're properly communicating.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
And Mr. Choti.
Mr. Choti. We're a technology company that focuses on the
primary market. We provide a solution for venues to, you know,
create events, create configurations for those events,
establish ticket quantities, adjust and modify pricing of
tickets, list availability, and establish fees, fees and how
those fees are applied.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. I'll start with you and go backward then.
So, fees, so how do you establish--who determines the fees, how
do you establish the fees, and what are the fees used for?
Mr. Choti. Again we're a technology platform, and we give
the tools and the functionality to our venues and decide how
and where and when they want to invoke certain pieces of
functionality.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Mr. Vaccaro, how do y'all determine fees?
Mr. Vaccaro. On the sites that we control, we determine
fees by what the others in the marketplace are charging to
match the fees and displays as close to them and return, get a
return on investment for our marketing dollars.
So all the money and fees basically goes to marketing.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Mr. Fitts, I don't know if I'll have time
to get all the way down but we'll try.
Mr. Fitts. In resale, the cost has two components, the base
price which is set by the seller and not by us and the fee
which we assess and the fee is used to pay for the call center
I described in my opening statement----
Mr. Guthrie. How do you determine the fees? How do y'all
determine----
Mr. Fitts. It's market competition. So it's subject to
discipline by the market. If there's a lower price, we have to
match it.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. I'm out of time but Ms. Burns she'll let
you finish if you'll be brief, each one of you.
Ms. Burns. OK. We are the marketplace. So sellers determine
the prices of tickets. As Mr. Fitts explained, there's two
components to pricing. There are the price of the ticket and
the fees we charge. Because we're a marketplace, the sellers
determine the price of the tickets.
Mr. Guthrie. If your fee's too high, people aren't going to
use your site.
Mr. Perez. Fees on our platform, both primary and resale,
are set by the client, and they're usually determined by market
analysis.
Mr. Guthrie. Ms. Howe?
Ms. Howe. Similar to Mr. Perez, fees are determined with
the event organizer, and we share in a portion of those fees.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence of the
Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the
full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm particularly concerned by the hidden fees that the
ticketing industry charges American consumers at the end very
end of the purchase process, and we're all familiar with this:
You search for a ticket online, and one price is initially
displayed, but, when you go to check out, hefty fees are added,
and the final price is much higher than the original price
shown.
There was a 2016 report by the National Economic Council
that stated, I quote: At their worst, such fees can be
fraudulent or deceptive; at a minimum, they make prices
unclear, hinder effective consumer decisionmaking, and dull the
competitive process.
So let me start with Ms. Howe. In your written testimony,
you stated, and I quote: Consumers should be able to see the
total cost of their tickets, including all fees, at the
beginning of the purchase price process, not only at the end.
So let me ask you, Ms. Howe: How would providing the total
ticket price at the beginning of the purchase process as
opposed to the end benefit consumers?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for your question, Chairman Pallone.
We believe that providing full disclosure, not just the
face value of the ticket, but the fees, will help aid a
consumer in making the right decision. So, instead of getting
so far down the purchase path, you should know upfront what
you're paying for and where those fees are going.
The Chairman. And how would--you further stated that
requiring all live event ticketing marketplaces to move to all-
in pricing would, and I quote, prevent price manipulation,
provide transparency, and protect consumers.
But is it Ticketmaster's position that it would support
all-in pricing?
Ms. Howe. Absolutely. We support it, but what we believe,
it needs to be mandated and that all marketplaces need to
comply.
The Chairman. So, if--as a dominant player in the industry,
if you voluntarily implemented this, I mean, you don't see that
as being effective? You think it has to be mandated by law?
Ms. Howe. It's a good question. The reason we don't believe
it's going to be effective is it's confusing to consumers.
Right now, yes, you need consumers to understand apples to
apples, and, today, if you look at Ticketmaster and you go to
another marketplace, that ticket may seem more expensive, but
the other marketplaces are marking that down and putting fees
as high as 40 to 50 percent on the back end. So they're making
ill-uninformed decisions if you don't have apples to apples.
The Chairman. OK.
And let me ask Mr. Perez. I'd like to get your views on
this issue of all-in pricing. In a briefing with the committee
staff, I understand you told the committee that disclosure of a
ticket's full price needs to occur as early in the purchase
process as possible. So why is it important to provide the full
ticket price to consumers upfront, and would you support a bill
to mandate it?
Mr. Perez. Thank you for the question, Chairman Pallone.
Because of the customer confusion between the primary and the
resale market, they are price shopping across for the same
ticket inventory across multiple websites. And it's our belief
that, with legislation that requires all of us to show the fees
all in upfront, then people would be able to make informed
decisions on the value and the cost of the ticket that they're
purchasing.
The Chairman. OK.
And then let me finally ask Ms. Burns. I understand that
Stubhub implemented all-in pricing from 2014 to 2015, but
ultimately moved away from that model. Why did Stubhub move
away from all-in pricing, and do you believe Stubhub's
experience would have been different if other players in the
industry had followed your lead?
Ms. Burns. Yes. And I just want to make one clarification.
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Burns. We actually do show all-in pricing on our site
today, and we allow it through search, as well as ticket-
listing pages. Consumers have an optional view to search based
on all-in pricing, so we leave it to the consumer, which we
think is the right thing to do.
But, to answer your question, the reason why we moved away
from it is because it was confusing for consumers when we were
offering all-in pricing and other ticketers were not because
consumers just didn't understand that they were viewing prices
that were inclusive of fees; they thought they were viewing
prices that were exclusive of fees.
So, for all-in pricing to work, we believe there needs to
be clear guidelines, you know, clear requirements of what
constitutes all-in pricing, as well as universal and consistent
enforcement.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I think it's critically important
that consumers have complete information about how much they're
going to spend on tickets at the beginning, not at the end. I
think all three of you agree.
So, going forward, I hope the industry will cooperate with
us in our efforts to put the consumer first, and all of you
said that you would support a mandate, and, Ms. Burns, I
appreciate your adding that we have to be specific about what
that means because I think that's important, too.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I've got a question for all the witnesses, and it is, who
makes the decision as to whether or not tickets are
transferable?
Ms. Howe, can we just start with you and----
Ms. Howe. Sure. Thank you for that question.
The event organizer is making that decision, so it's the--
--
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Howe [continue]. Artist, the sports team, the----
Mr. Walden. I understand.
Ms. Howe. Broadway producer.
Mr. Walden. Does everyone agree with that? Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez. In our experience, it's the artists themselves.
It's not even the event organizer. We've never issued
nontransferable tickets that weren't the direct request of an
artist.
Mr. Walden. All right. Ms. Burns? Does anybody disagree
with this notion?
Ms. Burns. I have a disagreement, actually. I think what's
important in answering the question about transferability is,
is the ticket transferable on any platform, or transferable
only within the platform of the primary issuer? I think there
is a key distinction there.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. Burns. In the latter case, the primary issuer is
actually making the choice to make that ticket nontransferable,
meaning----
Mr. Walden. Well----
Ms. Burns [continue]. If it can only be sold on that
primary issuer's platform----
Mr. Walden. Oh.
Ms. Burns [continue]. Then they are making the choice----
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Ms. Burns [continue]. That it's nontransferable.
Mr. Walden. Ms. Howe, do you want to respond to that?
Ms. Howe. Can I clarify that?
Mr. Walden. Yes, sure.
Ms. Howe. That's not accurate----
Mr. Walden. Oh.
Ms. Howe [continue]. For a couple of things. One is there
are very few cases where transfer is restricted. We don't----
Mr. Walden. What would those be?
Ms. Howe [continue]. Make that decision. We don't make that
decision. In the--there's only been a few since--and I just
wanted to correct the record from the opening statements.
SafeTix does not equal nontransferable tickets. So, yes, we've
invested in digital tickets, but we've invested in that because
we want to shut down the fraudulent ticket market. It does have
the capability to restrict transfer. It has only been used in a
couple of situations--Pearl Jam most recently, which I
mentioned earlier--and, just on this Monday, we ticketed the
Kobe Bryant Memorial Service, and his wishes were to make sure
that--his family's wishes were to get those tickets at well-
below-face market prices and do that in a way that didn't
create a secondary market. All that money went to charity.
So there are situations where restricted transfer is great
for the consumer, and it's great for the content owner.
Mr. Walden. All right. Anybody else wants to----
Mr. Vaccaro. If I can just interject that Connecticut has a
very pro-consumer law, and it's the venue that ultimately has
responsibility for the transfer of the tickets. So the venue is
the bad actor if you can't transfer the ticket, not the
promoter or anything. And Connecticut's law requires that you
be able to transfer the ticket without giving any personally
identifiable information to the venue to transfer the ticket,
regardless if the venue is located in Connecticut or out of
State.
Mr. Walden. All right. Mr. Fitts, you want to weigh in on
that?
Mr. Fitts. Yes. Thank you. Transferability means
competition, right? So marketplaces should have to compete with
one another for that ticket on the resale marketplace. If a
ticket is transferable, it means that different marketplaces
can offer it and compete about services, compete over fees. The
danger with SafeTicket, which sounds like a nice product, but
it has dangers that eventually that become a walled garden for
only Ticketmaster to operate. That's the danger here, and
that's why we need the BOSS Act to protect transferability.
Mr. Walden. Do any of you oppose electronic ticketing? Just
as a consumer, I kind of like that.
Mr. Vaccaro. The only thing I oppose is when you mandate
it--when you mandate it. For example, with the CCPA, it was
mandated that, look, you need a mobile phone. You need an app.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Vaccaro. People came out that it was disenfranchising
for people who didn't have it. Plus, a lot of the primaries
came out that they gathered so much information from you,
including your gender or change in gender, and they sold that
information to marketers to help you market that. They gave you
IP addresses of your customers. It's a very much concern with
the military members. They also put in devices on those
phones----
Mr. Walden. Now, who was doing this?
Mr. Vaccaro [continue]. On your location.
Mr. Walden. Who was doing this?
Mr. Vaccaro. Both AXS and Ticketmaster.
Mr. Walden. Do either of you want to respond to that?
Ms. Howe. Let me just clarify. Ticketmaster is not
mandating the use of digital tickets.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Howe. It's our job to create the technology and let me
give you some numbers. For the NFL, which was the first league
to use SafeTix and digital ticketing at scale. There are some
teams that have 95 percent digital tickets, and there are some
that have 25 percent. That is a team decision; that's not a
Ticketmaster decision.
Mr. Walden. It's an option. OK. What about the information
gathering and sale piece that he referenced?
Ms. Howe. Sorry. Can you repeat----
Mr. Walden. Everything from gender to IP addresses.
Mr. Vaccaro. I can supply you all the documentation. I gave
it to your committee.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Vaccaro. Your staff members. It was on their website.
It all came apart because of the California Consumer
Protection----
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Vaccaro [continue]. Act, Privacy Act, and they're
saying, what information do you disclose? And the amount of
information, if you want to transfer a ticket, is enormous. So
you, as a consumer, before you even buy your tickets, you pay a
cost. If you want to do mobile only and nontransferable, you
have to give them so much information that they, in turn, sell
to marketplace.
Mr. Walden. I just want her to be able to--and I'm out of
time, but can you just----
Ms. Howe. I'm sorry. That's not accurate, at least for
Ticketmaster. I can't speak for other platforms. You're
providing--the only information you're providing is your name,
your phone number, and your email address to be able to receive
transfer, and we cannot do anything with that data. The only
thing we can do is troubleshoot and fulfill that ticket. We
can't market. So that's at least how we do it on our platform.
Mr. Walden. Thank you for letting them answer, Madam Chair.
Thanks.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Consumer
Protection Subcommittee that will be considering the BOSS Act,
Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Consumers continue to be negatively affected by practices
occurring in the ticketing marketplace, and many of the
practices have been well documented--some of you have mentioned
some of the concerns--and have gone on for quite a while. I
just want to go down the row and ask each of you, just yes or
no, do you believe that we need more legislation to adequately
protect consumers?
Ms. Howe, I'll begin with you.
Ms. Howe. Absolutely, we do.
Mr. Perez. Yes, we do.
Ms. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Fitts. Yes, we do.
Mr. Vaccaro. Yes, or enforcement of the current laws.
Mr. Choti. Without question.
Ms. Schakowsky. Or, or and?
Mr. Vaccaro. Or.
Mr. Choti. Without question.
Ms. Schakowsky. So I think there is pretty much agreement
here that we need to do something, and the plan is that we
will.
So now I want to hear firsthand from those in the industry
about harms that impact consumers. Let me just ask, what do you
believe are the most significant anticonsumer practices that
are taking place in the industry? I don't have a lot of time.
So, again, I'd like to go down the row, beginning with you, Ms.
Howe. Your company, Ticketmaster, is the largest primary seller
of tickets. You begin. What do you think?
Ms. Howe. We're concerned about bots. Thirty billion bots
blocked a year is preventing ticket consumers from getting
access. We're concerned with speculative ticketing, deceptive
websites, and the lack of proper resale disclosures for
consumers.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez. Bots, for sure, and deceptive websites, and
speculative ticketing.
Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Burns?
Ms. Burns. We think that ticket transferability reigns
supreme. So anything that disables ticket transferability or
anything that limits ticket transferability to a specific
platform, that's harmful to consumers because it limits choice.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Fitts?
Mr. Fitts. Ticket transferability is the key issue facing
the industry today. That's why States like Colorado have passed
laws requiring that tickets be transferable. It's necessary for
the consumer to be able to compete--I mean, to be able to see
others compete for that ticket.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Vaccaro?
Mr. Vaccaro. Ticket transferability, data sharing, and
floor pricing.
Ms. Schakowsky. So you're the only one that has really
raised the privacy issue, I think.
Mr. Vaccaro. I think there is a lot of consumers who aren't
aware of what came out, and there were articles with it. A lot
of reasons why the other folks don't raise it is some of the
other folks, as part of their thing, they actively sell all
that data, and, contrary to what they said, I gave your staff
the links.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Vaccaro. It says: We market to this. We market--we sell
your gender. They put it right in there. Your IP address----
Ms. Schakowsky. I, heard that. Thank you.
Mr. Vaccaro. OK.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And Mr. Choti?
Mr. Choti. Bots, deceptive websites, and data sharing and
utilization. Our model is different than most models in the
marketplace today, where our client, our venue's data, is their
data, and we don't share that with any third party or
ourselves.
Ms. Schakowsky. Great. I'm going to ask Ms. Howe and Ms.
Burns, but others, if there is time, can respond. The FTC has a
role to play, or could play, and so I wanted to just ask you
what the FTC has also held--held a workshop and what you think
that the Federal Trade Commission can do to protect consumers.
Ms. Howe?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for the question.
Most important thing is to enforce the 2016 BOTS Act. It is
an arms race. We invest a lot of money, but without stronger
enforcement, it's going to be very difficult to fundamentally
solve that problem.
Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Burns? FTC.
Ms. Burns. Yes, I agree with regard to the BOTS Act, which
Stubhub was a strong supporter of, that more can be done with
enforcement and I believe that's a cooperation between
Congress, the FTC, and DOJ. Also believe the FTC can do more to
support and maintain competition, healthy competition, within
ticketing. It has enforcement authority there as well.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Anybody else that wants to just briefly
comment on the role of the regulator, Federal Trade Commission?
Mr. Fitts?
Mr. Fitts. If I may, the FTC should also be concerned with
holdbacks and that practice, and they should take a look at
that perhaps but also transferability and the ways that tickets
are exchanged between exchanges.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Vaccaro. I would--I would--just adding to that, I would
say that Commissioner Slaughter from the FTC made one mandate.
She either--said: People in this industry, either you fix the
hidden prices, or the FTC will find a solution for you.
That was the main mandate. I think we did it. I believe
that Stubhub did it with the toggle. So now we have some
players. Other ones haven't.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. My time is up, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Thank the gentlelady.
Chair now recognizes Mr. Burgess for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you.
And I actually want to go back to something that Ranking
Member Walden was talking about, and that is the issue on the
issuing of digital tickets and moving to all digital tickets,
and then how does the nondigital individual interface with the
ticket-selling world?
Mr. Fitts and Ms. Burns, maybe you can address that. Going
to all--everyone has to buy their ticket on a smartphone, but
there are still people out there who don't have the technology.
Mr. Fitts. I'll take that. Yes. I mean, the problem with
requiring a smartphone is it does eliminate individuals who
don't have a smartphone from attending events. I think, without
a paper option, that could, you know, foreclose people from
attending. I think digital tickets could be a positive, but,
again, there is a danger that transferability is shut off
simply with the flip of a switch, and then you have a closed
garden, a walled garden, and people aren't able to compete.
Mr. Burgess. So Ms. Burns?
Ms. Burns. I agree with that. I don't have anything to add
there.
Mr. Burgess. So, Ms. Howe, you looked like you wanted to
say something.
Ms. Howe. Yes. Let me just clarify. With digital tickets,
it's always an option for a fan to get a paper ticket at the
box office. So, if they don't have a smartphone, they can
always work with customer service, and they can get that at the
box service.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, but then they've got to stand in line in
the cold outside the ticket window, right? They should do it
with a smartphone. OK.
Mr. Vaccaro, you brought up an interesting point about the
collection of digital data, and you brought up the California
law and State law on privacy and how that is now beginning to
impact--I guess for all of you, impact your business. Have you
had any difficulty meeting the demands in the European side of
things with the GDPR? Has that surfaced as an issue for any of
you?
Mr. Vaccaro. We comply with them. It was an issue. It was a
cost to us. I think, ultimately consumers will benefit from it,
and I think consumers are much more wary now about their data
and what's it used for. So, as far as us as--no, we comply with
it. We did it. It was expensive, but we did it.
Mr. Burgess. Has anyone found difficulty with complying----
Ms. Howe. No.
Mr. Burgess [continue]. With either the California law of
the GDPR? Yes, sir, Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez. No. In fact, GDPR is set up very well for
compliance with the California law. And just for the record, we
do not sell data to anyone. We provide the data to our venues
so they can service all fans when they show up at the event,
regardless of where they purchased the ticket. It's a ability
to provide customer service. With paper tickets and PDF
tickets, we have no idea who these people are, where they got
the tickets, and we cannot help them, and that really pains us.
Mr. Burgess. Let me just ask you a question, because
privacy is going to be something that may--that the Energy and
Commerce Committee writ large is going to have to deal with it.
Does anyone have any thoughts and advice that you would give
the committee when we're dealing with how to reconcile what's
happening in California with the rest of the country? Is a
national standard something that to which we should aspire?
Mr. Vaccaro. I would say a national standard would make it
much simpler on businesses that you don't have to comply with
50 State laws on privacy, and there is an argument to be made
that California's law gives an advantage over California
businesses rather than out-of-state businesses because the way
they apply the law. But, yes, you're right, a national
standard, much easier for businesses to comply with rather than
dealing with 50 different States.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, it's always been my thesis that the
Founders, when they wrote the Constitution, the Commerce Clause
was written with the idea that eventually we'll get to a world
of e-commerce where we want to be able to sell things across
the several States without boundaries.
Yes, Mr. Fitts?
Mr. Fitts. I think, though, there is a privacy issue here
in our industry, and that's a practice, I think, sometimes
engaged in by primary marketplaces where, if a ticket is sold
on my marketplace, it's digital, they require my customer to
log into their marketplace to download the ticket. That creates
a relationship that my customer didn't intend, and it's a
forced transfer of PII. So, I mean, that's concerning. I look
to the BOSS Act to address that.
Mr. Burgess. And you think it would be addressed in the
BOSS Act?
Mr. Fitts. I think the language on that point could be a
little stronger, but I think that--I see that as friction to
transferability that exists right now, that should be
eliminated.
Mr. Burgess. I agree.
I'll yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. Thank the gentleman.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Ruiz?
Mr. Ruiz. It happens to me all the time.
Thank you, and thank you to the witnesses that are here
today.
One of the primary economic drivers in my district is
tourism: Palm Springs, California; Coachella Valley. People who
fly into Palm Springs from around the country often will buy
tickets to shows or concerts during their time in the Coachella
Valley. Many of you may have heard of the Coachella and
Stagecoach festivals that attract hundreds of thousands of
people each year.
Starting next year, tourists will have a new attraction: an
NHL hockey team based in Palm Springs. When people visit my
district for these events, they spend money at our local
businesses and patronize our hotels and restaurants. I want to
be sure that their experience is a good one, and that starts
with the ticket-buying process.
One practice that is particularly concerning to me is the
use of deceptive white label websites. These ticketing websites
deceive consumers into believing the websites are affiliated
with a venue, team, or artist when, in fact, no such
affiliation exists.
Ms. Howe, in your testimony, you contended that, quote,
some secondary marketplaces routinely use or work with these
deceptive websites, unquote. How prevalent are deceptive white
label websites and how are they harming consumers?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for the question.
Last year alone, we worked with Google and other ISPs to
shut down over 30 of these deceptive websites, and it's
incredibly misleading. They're posing as official websites of
the venue, the artist, the team, and you're pushing a consumer
to a secondary site oftentimes that has been----
Mr. Ruiz. How prevalent are they?
Ms. Howe. I don't know the exact number, but----
Mr. Ruiz. And how would you say they harm consumers?
Ms. Howe. They are--they're resell sites. So, when you're
pushing--a consumer thinks they're buying from an official box
office, an official team site, and you're posing as----
Mr. Ruiz. And it costs more?
Ms. Howe [continue]. A resell site, it costs more,
absolutely.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Mr. Vaccaro, the FTC brought an action against your company
in 2014, alleging that it licensed tools and services to
clients who created websites that misrepresented affiliations
with certain venues. For example, the FTC alleged that a
TicketNetwork client created a web page that appeared to be
affiliated with a Radio City Music Hall. According to the FTC's
complaint, the client advertised the site as the, quote,
official ticket source online, unquote, for Radio City Music
Hall tickets even though the website had no affiliation with
the venue.
Mr. Vaccaro, your written testimony noted that
TicketNetwork entered into a consent decree with the FTC that
contains, quote, clear and concise rules, unquote, on how to
operate white label websites that are not deceptive.
Mr. Vaccaro, what are you doing to ensure that
TicketNetwork's clients do not create websites that
misrepresent an affiliation with the venue?
Mr. Vaccaro. Thank you. That's great.
The first thing we do is the FTC laid out some pretty clear
and concise rules to follow: Don't use the word ``official.''
There was----
Mr. Ruiz. How are you implementing those recommendations?
Mr. Vaccaro. We told any websites who buy that from us not
to do it.
Mr. Ruiz. Do you follow up and check with them?
Mr. Vaccaro. We follow up as much as we can, but we also
have affiliates----
Mr. Ruiz. As much as you can, what does that mean? You
don't, or you do?
Mr. Vaccaro. We do follow up. I don't know the exact
answer, the procedure of how we follow up or how we review each
of them, but I can get back to you on that.
Mr. Ruiz. OK. I think that will be important because that's
what this whole topic is about.
Mr. Fitts, I understand that your company also licenses
tools and services to third-party ticketing websites. In your
testimony, you described how Vivid Seats screens potential
licenses and requires them to comply with the FTC's consent
decree with TicketNetwork.
Mr. Fitts, given these precautions, are you certain that
your licensees are not engaged in deceptive white label
practices?
Mr. Fitts. We agree to----
Mr. Ruiz. You've got to turn it on.
Mr. Fitts. I'm sorry. I'm not on. We agree that false
impressions left with consumers about affiliations does not
exist.
Mr. Ruiz. So how certain that--so you're pretty certain
that your licensees are not engaged in these deceptive white
label practices?
Mr. Fitts. Exactly. Our licensees do not deceive anybody.
Mr. Ruiz. Ms. Burns, do you believe the FTC is sufficiently
deterring companies from engaging in deceptive white label
practices, or do you think more needs to be done?
Ms. Burns. I think the FTC has done a good job of working
with the industry to crack down on white label sites. However,
I think more can be done.
Mr. Ruiz. Like what?
Ms. Burns. Consistent policing, working with industry to
identify them----
Mr. Ruiz. OK.
Ms. Burns [continue]. And taking swift action.
Mr. Ruiz. All right. Mr. Choti, same question: Do you
believe the FTC is sufficiently deterring companies from
engaging in deceptive white label practices, or do you think
more needs to be done?
Mr. Choti. I think more needs to be done. I've seen a
decrease in white label solutions out there. We as a ticketing
company go out and routinely see if there are people with
deceptive URLs and work with Google, likes of Google to have
them shut down.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I'm sorry about that.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In preparing for this hearing, Mr. Perez, my team had me
visit ticketflipping.com. Not something I would ordinarily do,
but this is a website that sells training materials to help
people become ticket brokers. On the site, they sell a plug-in
that gives a ticket broker the ability to know how many tickets
are available for AXS, your company, events, and specific data
about remaining tickets. It seems to me that this information
must be pretty valuable to brokers if they are designing plug-
ins to monitor sell rates on your website.
What is the value of this information, and, in your
opinion, is there a benefit to disclosure of this information
by venues?
Mr. Perez. In my opinion, there is no benefit of this
disclosure to the consumer. I think that the brokers that are
using that information are trying to gauge supply and demand so
they can maximize profits, and what we're seeing now--when we
talk about inventory disclosures, many of us on the panel today
have moved to seat maps where we fully disclose all the seats
available in a seat map.
Almost instantly, we saw, when we did that, people scraping
every single listing on our site, recreating a site that does
not own any of those tickets at a higher price, and, when they
close that transaction at a higher price, would come to our
website and purchase the actual ticket.
In our minds, that's complete and total deception and
fraud, and so we're concerned that providing the bad actor and
broker community a roadmap with how to maximum profits is going
to harm consumers.
Mr. Griffith. Well, what if you don't give them the actual
seats, but you just tell them how many are available? In other
words, you know, we still have 3,842 seats left? Does that--
that--because I----
Mr. Perez. The other--so----
Mr. Griffith. As we've seen, I would like to see that
information, too, because, if I'm trying to decide whether I
want to buy now or wait until later--I'm not sure I can
attend--that would help me decide whether I'm buying today or
buying next week.
Mr. Perez. Yes, correct.
The other thing that we've seen is, as inventory gets low,
there are a number of entities out there that, overnight, come
in and scoop up all the tickets. So you'd be selling 10, 20
tickets a day, and then, in one night, you'd sell 200 tickets,
the show would be sold out, one entity would try and control
those tickets and now artificially raise the resale market.
So, again, we share--we have the same concern in that
particular situation. I think what is probably easier to
accomplish and more palpable for everybody is the total number
of tickets at the outset----
Mr. Griffith. Yes.
Mr. Perez [continue]. And we talked about it earlier by the
way of, for sports teams, we know how many seats are in the
venue. For concerts, we know roughly how many seats are going
to be available subject to production realities.
Mr. Griffith. Do you all have the capability to monitor
when somebody is selling the tickets for an upscale? And I
think, Ms. Howe, you mentioned earlier some prices that was
going on in Colorado. Can you all monitor what the increase in
the price is over what it was at the--on the face value of a
ticket? You can go ahead, either one of you.
Mr. Perez. We try. There are so many websites out there
that it's almost impossible to monitor every single one of
them.
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Ms. Howe. That's right.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Now, Ms. Howe, in ticketing, it
seems consumer complaints hit a peak when they are unable to
access tickets. How often--I think it would help the committee?
How often do you have sellout events? How often does the demand
exceed the supply?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for the question.
So, if you look at last year, there were about 60,000 music
events. Only 30 percent of those sold out, and, if you look at
the number that sold out within the first 24 hours, it was
about 2.5 percent. So there is very, very high-demand events,
but it's a relatively small percentage of the events.
Mr. Griffith. And what--can you explain to us what
technologies your company is using to try to develop to reduce
the presence of bots when you're selling tickets to these
events that are expected to be high-demand events?
Ms. Howe. Absolutely. As I mentioned in my opening remarks,
we're blocking three billion bots a month, and, this year, we
expect to block close to 30 billion.
We are doing a number of things. We are leveraging state-
of-the-art technology to block bots on the perimeter of our
marketplace, but we're also investing in smart, innovative
products that are letting fans get to the front of the line--in
front of both bots and professional brokers, so we're giving
them fair access.
Mr. Griffith. In those events, if people are willing to pay
a higher price, why not have the face value be higher as well
in the first place, and wouldn't that benefit the artists more?
Ms. Howe. It's a great question, and we have a terrific
product that we've launched a few years ago. It's a platinum
product which effectively allows the artist to do exactly that.
So, for those best seats in the house, if the artist wants to
recapture that value instead of it going to a middleman,
they're able to do that effectively.
Mr. Griffith. All right. And I appreciate it, and I yield
back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Howe. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
New Hampshire for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
appreciate all of you being here for this hearing today. I want
to get back to the transferability question. I was just poised
to do it when my colleague reclaimed his time, but, Mr. Fitts,
proponents of placing restrictions on ticket transferability,
have argued that those restrictions help keep ticket prices
low, but, in your testimony, you argue that transferability
restrictions, quote, would leave fans with fewer choices and
higher prices.
Do you think that proponents of transferability
restrictions truly believe that these restrictions keep prices
lower for consumers, or is there something more nefarious
underlining this position?
Mr. Fitts. I wouldn't necessarily characterize their
testimony, but I would say that transferability leads to
competition, and so, when a ticket is transferable, multiple
marketplaces need to compete over it, and so that means doing
things like having a 100 percent buyer guaranty, a call center
available at extended hours. They have to compete for those
issues.
They also need to compete on price, of course, because, if
a fee is too high in one market, it won't sell. So
transferability breeds competition. The danger of the lack of
transferability is it cuts it off and restricts it to one
player.
Ms. Kuster. Which would result in higher prices for
consumers presumably?
Mr. Fitts. Presumably, it could lead to higher prices and
lower service levels.
Ms. Kuster. And lower service. OK.
Ms. Burns, beyond controlling ticket price, proponents of
nontransferable tickets also contend these restrictions enhance
event security and limit fraud, but in your testimony, you
called these arguments, quote, a smokescreen designed to limit
consumer choice.
How prevalent is fraud in the secondary ticket marketplace,
and why do you think concerns about fraud are a smokescreen or
a bogus argument?
Ms. Burns. I can't speak to numbers for the entire
industry. I just know what the numbers are for Stubhub, and I
can tell you they're incredibly low, far less than one-half of
a percent of tickets subject to fraud on our site.
So we believe it's a smokescreen as justification to hold
the consumer captive, again, with the primary ticketer, who
also has a secondary platform--if they want to transfer that
ticket within the platform--again, I think it's important to
distinguish between is the ticket nontransferable, or is it
nontransferable outside the primary issuer's platform?
But I think it's a smokescreen because the primary issuer
doesn't do any background check on the buyer, right, nor do
they even know who that buyer may be taking to an event as
their guest. They could be taking multiple people, and their
identity is unknown.
So, again, it's why I think it's--it's an excuse, and it's
not a valid justification.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
In addition to outright transfer prohibition, some ticket
issuers permit resale, but only through certain processes. In
its response to the committee, Stubhub stated Ticketmaster is
increasingly requiring consumers who buy resale tickets on non-
Ticketmaster sites, like Stubhub, to complete their purchase
through Ticketmaster's website or app.
Do you think this is a genuine privacy issue, or, again, do
you think this workaround is just to capture your customer?
What do you think the purpose of that is, and then we'll let
others respond?
Ms. Burns. Yes. I think it's an anticompetitive issue, but
it raises a privacy issue in the process, right, because the
consumer who purchases their ticket off Stubhub or any other
platform, when Ticketmaster is the primary issuer, that
consumer has to go through Stubhub in order to receive their--
or--sorry--through Ticketmaster in order to receive their
ticket, and, in that process, they download their app, they
register an account, hand over their personal data. Yet, at the
time of the purchase, they may have had no intention of doing
any business of any sort with Ticketmaster.
Ms. Kuster. And can I just guess as a consumer that, then,
they get a flood of emails marketing to them from both Stubhub
and now Ticketmaster as well?
Ms. Burns. You would have to ask that question of my
colleague here, Ms. Howe.
Ms. Kuster. Anyone want to comment from Ticketmaster?
Ms. Howe. I'm happy to comment.
Ms. Kuster. Sure.
Ms. Howe. When a ticket is--if a digital ticket is bought
on another platform and fulfilled within Ticketmaster, we have
no rights to market to that consumer. The only thing we can--
the only information we can use is to fulfill that ticket and,
if there are issues, customer service issues, that's how we use
that information. We cannot market to that consumer. We cannot
sell that data.
Ms. Kuster. What's the information that you require at that
second step?
Ms. Howe. Name, phone number, email address.
Ms. Kuster. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the
panel.
I'm proud of all of the work my home State of New York has
done to address consumer harms in the ticketing industry. A
2016 report by the New York attorney general found that brokers
use illegal bots to seize large blocks of tickets. And I'm
proud to have helped passed the BOTS Act in 2016, which made
the use of ticket bots illegal. However, several of our
witnesses' responses have indicated that bots still exist
within the marketplace, so we must keep working to ensure
illegal bots are not stealing tickets away from the public.
But, in addition to bots, the report also found that
consumers often lack access to tickets because many tickets are
put on hold for industry insiders and presale events.
So, Mr. Fitts, your response to the committee stated that--
and I quote--perceived scarcity at the on-sale is not caused by
bots. It is primarily caused by holdbacks engineered by the
ticketing company that operates the on-sale process, close
quote.
Mr. Fitts, how serious of a problem are holdbacks, and why
should consumers care about this practice?
Mr. Fitts. Well, holdbacks are a concern for consumers
because the consumer is asked to make a decision in a high-
pressure situation on an on-sale for concert where they don't
have full information. It's a very different thought if there
is 80 tickets left versus 8,000. So that's holding back a key
piece of information from the consumer that they could really
use.
And so, when they report as sold out, the consumer might
not understand that there is more tickets coming later, and
they may have paid a different price, but the sellout may not
be legitimate.
Mr. Tonko. We're hearing that some of it might--that
holdbacks might be a vast minority of the tickets that go for
sale. Is that true? I mean, the report also indicated that it
might be as high as 50 percent.
Mr. Fitts. Yes. I know that I've seen media coverage, like
the Toronto Star, for example, that showed something much more
extensive than the small percentage. So, based on that report,
I disagree.
Mr. Tonko. Ms. Burns, one way to address holdbacks is to
increase transparency around ticket availability. In your
testimony, you stated that this information will--and I quote--
create a clearer picture of event accessibility and help to
inform fans' decisions on if and when to buy tickets.
How would increasing transparency around ticket
availability help consumers?
Ms. Burns. Because you would know how many tickets are
available at the event, and it may inform your decision as to
whether purchase at the on-sale or to wait.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Ms. Burns, some have argued against disclosing
information on ticket availability. For instance, Ticketmaster
contends that disclosing this information would benefit brokers
and bots by--again, quoting--making it easier for them to
target supply and manipulate the market.
So, Ms. Burns, do you buy this argument, or do you believe
that we should err on the side of more disclosure?
Ms. Burns. No. I think the argument is disingenuous in
that, you know, the purpose of the holdback is, again, to
create a scarcity of supply. So, you know, as tickets are
trickled out over time, again, it's designed to maintain prices
or potentially increase prices as you near the event.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Vaccaro, you wrote in an op-ed in 2016 entitled ``More
Transparency in Ticket Sales and No More Bots,'' in that piece,
you argued in favor of disclosing ticket availability and
stated, and I quote: If consumers knew the truth, they would no
longer be fans.
So why should there be more transparency surrounding ticket
availability, and what types of disclosures would be most
helpful for consumers?
Mr. Vaccaro. So I'm not an economist, and I don't pretend
to be, but I know that, when I speak to them, they say many
industries do a similar thing: They create a scarcity of
supply, which effectively moves a supply curve to the left,
which raises the equilibrium price, all right. So a lot of
monopolies do that. A lot of other people do that by creating
that scarcity of supply.
And when you do those multiple presales, you only see a few
amounts of tickets, a lot of people don't even realize how many
people in the--are in the presale. So you manipulate consumers
to think there is a scarcity; they buy at higher numbers.
That's why, over time, ticket prices are going down; they're
not going up.
Mr. Tonko. And, with the holdbacks issue, is it as large a
number of tickets as some have reported, or is it a very slight
number? Is it--can it reach 50 percent?
Mr. Vaccaro. I would say it could--well, let me clarify
that because I think it's an important distinction to make. In
most sports teams, they disclose the amounts of tickets, all
right? The real issue that we're really talking about here is
more or less concerts, OK.
So, in concerts, it is amazing not only how many tickets
they hold back, but there is also venues that have unmanifested
seats that they sell that aren't even available to the public
that are unmanifested. So the holdback number is even higher
than what insiders report because they don't even count the
nonmanifested tickets as tickets that are going on sale.
Mr. Tonko. So it can approach 50 percent?
Mr. Vaccaro. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank the gentleman.
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,
Ranking Member, for convening this very important hearing. I
want to thank our witnesses as well for your testimony and
testifying here today.
In my district in Brooklyn, New York, I have both the
Barclays Center and the historic Kings Theatre, which draws
crowds from across the borough, city, and tri-state area.
Whether people are taking their families to see a Nets game or
a concert, it is very important to me that the consumers are
protected against harmful practices which have filled the
marketplace for far too long.
Having said that, I want to circle back to an issue that
was mentioned earlier, Ms. Howe. Can you please clarify
something you said for me, and that is: I'm trying to determine
on what--what you do with consumer data you receive from
customers who buy tickets on other platforms like Stubhub, and
what is it that you cannot do with that data?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for the question.
The only thing we can--the only information we receive is
the consumer's name, email, and phone number, and the only
thing we can do with that is fulfill the ticket, and, if there
is an issue fulfilling that, we use it for customer services.
So all consumers have to opt-in for marketing purposes. That's
regardless of what platform they're buying on.
Ms. Clarke. So there is nothing that you can do outside of
just basically obtaining the data; is that what you're saying?
Ms. Howe. I'm saying that we cannot use any information
that is acquired from another platform for any marketing
purposes, correct?
Ms. Clarke. OK. Very well.
According to a 2018 article in the New York Times, Live
Nation operates more than 200 venues worldwide, promotes more
than 30,000 shows around the world, and manages over 500
artists. At the same time, Ticketmaster, which merged with Live
Nation in 2010, handles tickets for 80 of the top 100 arenas in
the country, and sold more than 500 million tickets in 2018.
After the merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster, Live
Nation is arguably the most powerful company in the
entertainment industry. In fact, an article in The Economist
called Live Nation a, quote, vertically integrated behemoth,
end quote. The New York Times article I quoted from above also
contained alarming claims about how Live Nation is wielding its
market power.
Mr. Perez, according to the article, Live Nation threatened
to bypass shows at venues managed by your company unless the
venue used Ticketmaster as the ticketer for the venue. To your
knowledge, has Live Nation ever threatened to retaliate against
a venue if it doesn't use Ticketmaster as its platform, Mr.
Perez?
Mr. Perez. I have not heard it. The threat has not been
made to me personally. I do know people that have had comments
made to them.
Ms. Clarke. Ms. Howe, are you aware of any instances where
Live Nation or any of its affiliates threatened to bypass a
venue unless Ticketmaster was used as the primary ticketing
platform?
Ms. Howe. I'm not aware of any. You're referring to as many
as of you know, we just agreed to extend the consent decree
with the DOJ, and we believe that that will take this issue off
the table. We will compete on our own innovation and our own
right, not because of content.
Ms. Clarke. OK. In response to The New York Times article,
Ticketmaster's president stated that its industry, quote, is
not the--not the result of any unfair advantages resulting from
being a part of the Live Nation entertainment, end quote.
Ms. Burns, in your testimony, you stated that, in recent
years, Stubhub's mission has been, quote, complicated by
various anticompetitive, anticonsumer practices in the
ticketing industry, end quote.
How does Ticketmaster's dominance contribute to the
anticompetitive and anticonsumer practices in the industry?
Ms. Burns. I wish we had more time than we do to discuss
this, but we--we have had reports to us of experiences of
retaliation if Stubhub was used as the ticketing partner. As--
but what's important to understand is, you know, Ticketmaster,
in maintaining its dominance, there are three things really.
They're, you know, 80 percent of the primary ticketing share.
They operate or control 80 of the top 100 venues in this
country, and they--Live Nation, their parent, is the promoter
for over 400 artists.
So, when you have that kind of control over the industry,
it is very difficult, once you--once you start and do business
with them, to ever exit this ecosystem is how we're referred
to--an ecosystem that Ticketmaster has created. That's exactly
it. They've created this ecosystem that is very difficult to
leave.
And so, as a result, it is hard. We have had experience in
trying to enter the primary ticketing segment and have
experienced difficulty as a result of, you know, this dominance
in the market.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
I yield back. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Maybe just to follow up, is it--so I've heard
some discussion of whether tickets should betransferable. It's
obviously a big issue. Is it ever appropriate to hold back any
tickets from being transferable or to do kind of the off-the-
manifest kind of things? Is that something that is ever
appropriate? Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez. I'll give you a specific example. In the State
of Colorado, there is a venue that we ticket, Red Rocks, and
the first row of that very iconic venue is reserved for ADA
seating----
Mr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Perez [continue]. And because of laws, we're unable to
verify people's disabilities, and, as part of the consent
decree with Denver Arts & Venues and some advocacy groups,
we're actually able to make those tickets nontransferable to
have a greater influence over those tickets being resold and
making sure that the people with disabilities are the ones who
are actually using it.
Mr. Peters. OK. How about if the venue or the band wants to
hold back tickets for itself? Is that something that could be
nontransferable? Is it ever appropriate for that to be
nontransferable? Ms. Howe?
Ms. Howe. There are holds, and then there is the issue of
should that ticket be nontransferable. Artists can hold back
inventory for important purposes----
Mr. Peters. I see Mr. Vaccaro seems to be objecting to that
kind of practice. Is that true, or----
Mr. Vaccaro. Well, just for clarity's sake----
Mr. Peters. Is that a transparency issue?
Mr. Vaccaro. I think that, as far as holdbacks, that bands
and the artists should be able to hold back whatever tickets
they want, just as long as they disclose them to the public.
So, as far as holdbacks, it's that.
I think the problem with transferability is it gets to a
slippery slope on what could be transferred or not, and, you
know, a classic example is Ed Sheeran said his tickets aren't
transferable, nobody can make it to the show, the tickets were
selling for less than face value. Even though he had a face
value exchange, he wouldn't let consumers transfer them, and,
especially when you get to transferability----
Mr. Peters. I understand that, but I'm sort of thinking
there is a difference between 100 percent nontransferable and
five percent nontransferable.
Mr. Vaccaro. I agree with you.
Mr. Peters. OK.
Mr. Vaccaro. I think you're correct; it's a huge
distinction.
Mr. Peters. Is that a line that you think Congress could
draw in an effective way?
Mr. Vaccaro. I think it would be very difficult without--
very difficult to do unless it was very tightly written so that
people couldn't use that to advance their, let's say, monopoly
on tickets. That's the problem.
Mr. Peters. OK. Maybe a question for Ms. Howe. You know, we
were just--Ms. Burns was pointing out how many venues you own
in our district. House of Blues, the Padres, Humphreys, The
Civic Center. Some of these venues have experienced this kind
of fraud, and they seem to have little recourse against brokers
and platforms that engage in this deceptive behavior.
What are the remedies, and what suggestions do you have for
us to address this kind of problem?
Ms. Howe. Thank you for the question.
A couple of things. One is, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, we're fighting bots every month and every day. We're
blocking--we'll block three billion every month, 30 billion
this year. But, more importantly, we need to figure out how to
change the conditions at on-sale. So we're investing in
products like Verified Fan and Smart Queue that allow real fans
to actually get those tickets instead of brokers and secondary
markets.
We're also investing in digital technology that shuts that
fraudulent ticket market down, so, instead of the anonymous
barcode that can be--you can take a screenshot and send it to
somebody else, and it's a fraudulent ticket, that digital
ticket is now tied to your identity.
Mr. Peters. Ms. Burns, you had made--you're making an
anticompetitive argument. Does this kind of vertical
integration for security make the challenge a little more
difficult for you?
Ms. Burns. Absolutely. They control the supply chain end to
end, starting with artists, you know, the venue.
Mr. Peters. So, given the concern about security, how would
you suggest we draw the line at--between primary and secondary?
Ms. Burns. I'm not sure I'm tracking the question.
Mr. Peters. So Ms. Howe has made an argument that, because
she's issuing the tickets----
Ms. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Peters [continue]. She has a way to make sure that
they're followed kind of through the course of the transfer.
Ms. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Peters. That, again, seems to root transferability into
the same concern you had before.
Ms. Burns. And I think it's--I think it's possible to use
technology. You know, we should explore the use of technology
in order to track the ticket----
Mr. Peters. Right.
Ms. Burns [continue]. You know, prevent fraud.
Where we take issue is how Ticketmaster is doing it and
through the use of SafeTix technology is not for that purpose.
We don't think it's, you know, for the legitimate purpose of
cracking down on fraud because, again, remember, they don't do
any sort of background check onthe----
Mr. Peters [continue]. Member.
Ms. Burns [continue]. Individual. They don't know who else
is going, like--so, in terms of, you know, tracking those
issues, it's just not used for that purpose.
Mr. Peters. You think they're two different issues?
OK. My time is expired, but I appreciated all the witnesses
being here, and I look forward to working on this.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman, and I'm very pleased to
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, who is not a
member of this subcommittee, but we're always happy to have you
here, and now you're recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have some questions for Ms. Burns with Stubhub.
Let me give you the background first. There are situations
where a customer buys a ticket from an event sponsor, and then,
later on, they decide they can't use that ticket, and then they
use your platform to resell the ticket because of an
arrangement that you had with the original ticket--the original
event sponsor, and there is a fee charged for that resale in
the form of a reduction amount of proceeds that are received by
the ticket seller.
So how much is that fee?
Ms. Burns. The fee that's charged to seller--so there is no
fee charged to the seller to actually list on our site. There
is a fee that's charged on the sell, and it depends on who the
seller is.
Mr. Flores. OK. And then the--how is that fee set?
Ms. Burns. Well, again, the fee is set based on who the
seller is. So we have agreements with our sellers, and so----
Mr. Flores. But the seller is the customer. Are you talking
about the event sponsor is the seller in this case? So let's
say I buy a ticket----
Ms. Burns. Right.
Mr. Flores [continue]. And I pay the full price for it from
the event sponsor.
Ms. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Flores. And Stubhub has never been part of the
transaction, and then, if I want to resell it, the only way I
can resell it is because of some arrangement that the event
sponsor has with Stubhub. I sell the ticket, and then there is
this big discount taken, this big fee that's taken off, and I
get the net proceeds. So who sets that fee?
Ms. Burns. Who sets the fee is Stubhub sets the fee with
that seller.
Mr. Flores. OK. And then does the original event sponsor
receive part of that fee?
Ms. Burns. I don't know.
Mr. Flores. OK. Would you supplementally respond to that
for us and let us know?
Ms. Burns. Absolutely.
Mr. Flores. And, if yes, why does the original event
sponsor receive part of the fee for something they've already
received full value for is the question?
And then the next question is, is there any disclosure to
the customer that part of that fee is going back to the
original event sponsor that the customer bought the ticket
from?
Ms. Burns. OK. We'll follow up with you.
Mr. Flores. You'll get back with us on that?
Ms. Burns. Yes, I'm happy to do that.
Mr. Flores. And if there is any disclosure--if not, why
not, doesn't the customer deserve to see what that is?
And then the last question would be: What value to the
customer is there for paying an additional fee back to the
event sponsor?
Ms. Burns. I just want to make something clear. As is it
relates to fees, we are fully transparent as to fees that are
charged to the customer on our site, right? The customer knows,
throughout the search and the sale and the--and the sale, the
checkout process, what fees they are being charged. At no
point, when they purchase a ticket, do they not know what fees
they will be charged at the time of payment.
Mr. Flores. Right. And I'm not saying there is no
transparency in terms of the amount of the fee.
Ms. Burns. Yes.
Mr. Flores. It is just--a 15 percent fee for a $100 ticket
seems pretty expensive when--particularly if the original event
sponsor is getting part of that fee. There is getting some sort
of a kickback for part of that fee. So we need to figure that
out because I've noticed, in some situations, the fee was 10
percent one year, and then, the very next year, it's 15
percent. So we need to figure out why did that just suddenly--
why did the amount of the fee go up 50 percent in one year?
And then one just sort of an editorial comment for all of
you in this space, and that is that there is--as you've heard
from, I think, most everybody that's testified or asked
questions, there has been a--there is a lot of customer angst
about what happens in this space, and I think it would behoove
all of you that, when you're designing your processes, your
policies and pricing and procedures, that put yourself in the
customers' shoes, look at it through the customers' eyes, and I
think, if you do that, you wouldn't be in front of this panel
today.
So thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGette. Thank the gentleman.
Chair just has--I just have one more question to clarify.
Ms. Howe, you had said several times that Ticketmaster,
when it takes the data, it takes the name, the email address,
and the phone number of the purchaser. Is that right?
Ms. Howe. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. And that it doesn't resell, or it doesn't
market to those people?
Ms. Howe. We are not--only if a consumer opts in do we have
the right to market to them?
Ms. DeGette. OK. What about if a person puts their--is
trying to purchase the ticket on one of the reselling platforms
like Stubhub? Is the--is Ticketmaster's policy the same way if
they--only if they opt-in?
Ms. Howe. Correct. They can only--they opt-in, and it's
even more restrictive if it's bought on another platform.
Ms. DeGette. What's the----
Ms. Howe. In other words, we can only use that information
to fulfill the ticket and provide any service needed to do
that.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you.
And I want to thank the entire panel. This was actually a
very, very informative hearing for everybody on the committee
on both sides of the aisle, and now it's going to go over to
the Consumer Protection Subcommittee for action on the BOSS
Act, but this was really useful for us.
And I'd like to insert into the record by unanimous consent
the report by the New York attorney general on the ticketing
industry entitled ``Obstructed View: What's Blocking New
Yorkers From Getting Tickets''and the report by the Government
Accountability Office entitled ``Event Ticket Sales Market
Characteristics and Consumer Protection Issues'' and, in
addition, I'd ask unanimous consent that the contents of the
document binder be introduced into the record and to authorize
staff to make the appropriate redactions.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. And let's see. I guess--oh, I'd like to remind
Members--I'd ask--I'd like to ask the witnesses, if you have--
if you've been requested to provide additional information,
that you do so.
And, with that, this subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]