[Senate Hearing 119-473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-473
FEES ROLLED ON ALL SUMMER LONG: EXAMINING
THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
TECHNOLOGY, AND DATA PRIVACY
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 28, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-113 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
TECHNOLOGY, AND DATA PRIVACY
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee, Chair JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado,
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
TODD YOUNG, Indiana EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN CURTIS, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 28, 2026................................. 1
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 1
Letter dated September 30, 2025 to Joe Berchtold, President
and Chief Financial Officer, Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc. from Senator Marsha Blackburn and Senator Ray Ben
Lujan...................................................... 58
Letter dated October 17, 2025 to Senator Marsha Blackburn and
Senator Ben Ray Lujan from Daniel M. Wall, Executive Vice
President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc......................................... 60
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................ 3
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 32
Statement of Senator Schmitt..................................... 34
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 36
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 38
Statement of Senator Blunt Rochester............................. 41
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 42
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 50
Letter dated November 5, 2025 to Hon. Brianna K. Nadeau from
John Breyault, Vice President, Public Policy,
Telecommunications, and Fraud, National Consumers League... 50
Witnesses
Robert Ritchie ``Kid Rock'', Entertainer......................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Dan Wall, Executive Vice President of Corporate and Regulatory
Affairs, Live Nation Entertainment............................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Brian Berry, Executive Director, Ticket Policy Forum............. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
David Weingarden, Chair and Co-Founder, Colorado Independent
Venue Association (CIVA) and Vice President for Concerts and
Events, Z2 Entertainment....................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Dan Wall by:
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 71
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 73
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 76
Response to written questions submitted to Brian Berry by:
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 76
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 79
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 81
Response to written question submitted to David Weingarden by:
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 81
FEES ROLLED ON ALL SUMMER LONG: EXAMINING
THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2026
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Technology,
and Data Privacy,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Marsha
Blackburn, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Blackburn [presiding], Cruz, Young,
Schmitt, Lummis, Hickenlooper, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Markey,
Lujan, and Blunt Rochester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Hello, and welcome to everyone. Thrilled
that you all are here, and as we begin this hearing today for
my fellow Tennesseans I want them to know we are certainly
keeping them in our prayers as they work through this
incredible ice storm that we have had.
But I am grateful that you all are here for this hearing.
If you were to ask any of my fellow Tennesseans what is wrong
with ticketing today, they will not hesitate to tell you that
the system feels rigged against them.
They follow the rules, they get in the queue so that they
can make a purchase, so they are in there in advance and they
do everything right. And then they watch the tickets vanish in
seconds and they come back on the secondary markets at three or
four times the price.
Now, sometimes they have these tickets in their cart and
they move to checkout, and before they can click to buy the
ticket vanishes. It is gone.
And then sometimes the other problem is they go to the
resale site and they think they are buying a ticket. Again,
they are following the rules. They want to go to the show.
They want to go to the concert. They want to go to the
sporting event. But the ticket really does not exist because
the scammers and the scalpers are selling speculative tickets.
And I hear from a lot of these constituents that are buying
these tickets that do not exist or are priced at exorbitant
prices.
Now, it might be the nurse who has just finished working a
double shift and so she logs on the minute the tickets go on
sale, and before she can click to buy it says sold out.
Or maybe it is the dad who has promised their 16-year-old
for their birthday they are going to get to go to a concert,
the first big concert.
And if I went around this hearing room and I said, tell me
the first concert you went to, nearly every one of you could
name that event for me.
You could talk about that day. Some of you would talk about
what you wore. Some of you would talk about what you said and
the friends that went with you for that event.
And, of course, the disappointment mounts because the
tickets are gone. Fans are not angry about the fact that
tickets are popular and that events are popular. They are fans
and they want this experience.
What they are mad as hell about is that the system is
stacked against them. The ticket industry should desire to do
better. They should want to do better for fans of these artists
and sports teams and shows.
But consumers have lost faith that the rules apply not
equally to the marketplace and to them. They favor the bots,
the brokers, all the bad actors that are in this marketplace.
Now, for years--many of you know this--about a decade I
have been working to address these ticketing issues because
fans deserve fairness, transparency, and a real chance to see
the artists they love, the teams that they love, and that is
why Congress passed the bipartisan bicameral Better Online
Ticket Sales Act--the BOTS Act--to stop the use of these
automated tools and the other schemes that are cheating
consumers, that are circumventing safeguards, and undermining
trust in the live entertainment marketplace.
For years, the FTC failed to use the tools at their
disposal to go after the scalpers and, by the way, they did not
have any help from Ticketmaster going after these guys.
Now, that changed when President Donald Trump went into
office, and he was joined in the Oval Office by my friend Kid
Rock, and President Trump issued an executive order on
combating unfair practices in the ticketing marketplace.
The order specifically urged the FTC to rigorously enforce
the BOTS Act. Chairman Ferguson immediately answered that call,
and I am pleased that the BOTS Act is finally being enforced as
intended.
There is so much that we are going to discuss today,
including the ongoing enforcement action being pursued by the
FTC against Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
The FTC suit alleges that bad actors routinely bypass
ticket limit enforcement measures to buy large blocks of
tickets, which were then sold on Ticketmaster and Live Nation's
own resale platform.
How about that? Going to get you coming and going. Instead
of holding these brokers accountable--and, by the way, they
know that these bad actors are out there--the FTC alleges that
Ticketmaster turned a blind eye to these violations and
violated the BOTS Act simply because Ticketmaster wanted to
make an extra buck. They are looking for that extra percent on
every sale.
Over three years ago, Mr. Joe Berchtold, the Live Nation
President then, sat before me under oath in the Senate
Judiciary Committee and said that Ticketmaster does everything
in its power to stop scalpers using bots and other means of
circumvention from hoarding tickets and harming consumers.
If the lawsuit against them is any indication, that is far
from the truth. I will tell you this. If the local utility
company and the local bank can block the bots that are trying
to get in their system every single day, every day, a
powerhouse like Live Nation, Ticketmaster, honest to God ought
to be able to figure this out and I am tired of waiting on them
to do something about it. It is negligent.
I am also looking forward to discussing the consumer
protection issues specific to the secondary market like
speculative tickets, deceptive URLs, exorbitant resale prices,
and a number of other issues addressed in legislation that this
committee has worked on for years. Here in Congress, we are
going to continue to fight for the fans and for the artists and
ensure a fair ticketing marketplace.
At this time, I recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all
for being here.
It is easy to see that we deal with a lot of emotional
issues in this building and this is not--there is no difference
here. People care about music in a very powerful way.
I think this is an important discussion around the live
entertainment industry today in this country. Fans across the
country dedicate their time and their energy to attend live
entertainment.
Like, whether it is on concerts and sporting events, live
events brighten our days. They help bring communities together
and create a sense of purpose and unity. When you see a--when
you are part of an audience at a major musical event, you
become part of a community in the duration of that performance.
These events allow performers to show off their talent,
oftentimes at the highest level, and they are creating memories
that will last a lifetime.
Somebody who grew up in the Sixties and went to Woodstock,
I realize that is no proof of product, but I have seen my whole
life people having those memories change their lives for the
better.
What once was an easy, clear, reliable experience for fans
to get online or walk up to a box office and buy tickets has
turned into a confusing marketplace. Today, a consumer will
have to pay an additional administrative fee, a delivery fee, a
payment processing fee for every ticket they purchase. It is a
checkout gauntlet.
When we first--I was in the restaurant business and we
opened brew pubs across Colorado, our North Star was to always
make sure that our customers--in music you would call them our
fans--that they had the best possible experience, that there
would be the highest probability that they would come back and
be a repeat customer.
The cheapest customer to get is the one that you have
already had. If they ordered a craft beer, our job was to make
sure that the craft beer was the best craft beer that they
could get.
Today, a fan can purchase what they believe is a legitimate
ticket to an event only to be turned away once they get to the
venue because what they bought was a fake or a speculative
ticket.
This deception means less fans for supporting performers.
It erodes the trust in the entire entertainment industry.
Obviously, it disappoints fans. We want fans to experience
Colorado's landmark venues--you know, Fiddler's Green
Amphitheater, the Fillmore auditorium, or God bless it forever,
Red Rocks Amphitheater.
I have had some of my greatest performance memories--not me
performing, trust me, although I did once play the banjo on the
stage to Red Rocks, but I will stop bragging.
Senator Blackburn. Maybe you can get hired.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, exactly. Well, I have tried. It
did not work out. I will never be hired to do music, that is
for sure.
But I think whether it is at large sold-out arenas or small
pubs with an open mic, every corner of Colorado is brimmed with
talented performers waiting for their chance to engage and
entertain and move people, and that is why Colorado, you know,
we feel it is the heartbeat of the live music scene in the
West.
It has become a leader by passing customer protection laws
to make sure that those critical fans are not pissed off. Our
state has passed legislation to guard against speculative
tickets and passed measures to make all-in ticket pricing
transparent for all fans.
Here in Congress and across the Federal Government, we need
to continue beating the same drum of customer fairness to make
sure that every American is protected by these common-sense
guardrails.
Federal Trade Commission--the FTC--has begun enforcing its
junk fees rule to promote upfront pricing and fight against
deceptive advertising for both products and services.
Congress also passed the BOTS Act, as the Chair had
mentioned, in 2016 to stop ticket scalpers from using bots to
buy all available tickets for a show just to be able to resell
them to the highest bidder.
Despite this progress, we need to work together to make
sure across government and industry that we can do more. A
level playing field with fair competition, clear rules, strong
enforcement is going to help every aspiring artist to sell as
many tickets as they can, sell out every place they can, and
make sure that every performer gets that chance to reach new
fans and every consumer that chance to create new memories.
This committee has shown that on a bipartisan basis
Democrats and Republicans can come together and begin to make
common-sense reforms a reality.
The TICKET Act, led by Senators Schmitt and Markey, ensures
that every consumer sees the price transparency they need from
first click so they are not blindsided at the checkout.
The MAIN Ticketing Event Act improves data sharing between
ticket platforms and helps the FTC catch the bad actors who use
bots to hoard tickets and rip off fans, and beyond regulation,
I am proud to partner with Chair Blackburn on the American
Music Tourism Act, which will grow the entire music ecosystem
through economic development, not just regulate it.
Each of these bills have passed this committee with
bipartisan support. Now we need to make sure that we get them
all signed into law so consumers can reap the benefits of these
protections.
This is about more than just a lower service fee. It is
about protecting the live experience that brings so many people
together. Let us get the junk fees out of the way so we can get
back to enjoying the music of, well, of John Denver and ``Rocky
Mountain High.''
Chair Blackburn, I yield back.
Senator Blackburn. I thank the gentleman and, you know, we
might let Red Rock or some of your Colorado venues be a little
Nashville.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blackburn. Well, we will take that on.
I want to say a thank you to each of our witnesses today.
What a great panel. We are grateful that you are here.
And at this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses.
Our first is Mr. Robert Ritchie. Perhaps he is better known as
``Kid Rock''. Kid Rock is a well-known singer-songwriter who
has sold over 25 million albums around the world. He brings
firsthand experience, drawing sold-out crowds to events across
the country.
Our second witness is Brian Berry, Executive Director of
Ticket Policy Forum, an advocacy coalition representing the
Nation's six major online ticket marketplaces. Mr. Berry has
spent the last decade working at the intersection of live
events ticketing, competition, advocacy at the Federal and the
state level.
Our third witness is Dan Wall. Dan Wall is the Executive
Vice President for Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Live
Nation Entertainment. Live Nation Entertainment, the parent
company of Ticketmaster, is the largest ticket vendor in the
world.
And our final witness, David Weingarden, Chair and Co-
Founder of the Colorado Independent Venue Association,
representing over a hundred promoters and venues. He also
serves as the vice president for concert and events at Z2
Entertainment.
At this time, Mr. Ritchie, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RITCHIE ``KID ROCK'', ENTERTAINER
Mr. Ritchie. Is this--there it is.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator Blackburn and committee
members, for this opportunity.
My name is Robert Ritchie, PKA Kid Rock. I am proud to say
I have been packing arenas, amphitheaters, and stadiums with
the greatest fans on earth for over 25 years. I am also a
capitalist.
I am here today because I love God. I love this country. I
love live music and sports, and I believe music fans and
artists have been getting screwed for far too long by the
ticketing system.
I am in a unique position to testify because, unlike most
of my peers, I am beholden to no one--no record companies, no
managers, no corporate endorsements or deals. To put it
plainly, I ain't scared.
I ain't scared to speak out on these issues like many
artists, managers, and agents are for fear of biting the hand
that feeds them.
I am here because hardworking Americans who love live music
deserve better and because artists deserve control over their
own work. And let us be clear, this problem is older than
timeouts and participation trophies.
Thirty years ago, members of the rock band Pearl Jam--
excuse me, members of the rock band Pearl Jam sat in these same
seats warning Congress about ticketing abuse. In 2009, Congress
was told under oath that merging Live Nation and Ticketmaster
would benefit artists and fans. The CEO of Live Nation called
the merger an experiment and promised it would increase
competition, empower artists, and lower costs. He also said,
and I quote, ``A system that empowers artists benefits
everyone.'' Almost need a rim shot after that.
The CEO of Ticketmaster at the time also testified in 2009
and said, ``We believe the combination of our two companies
will benefit artists, fans, theaters, sports teams, museums,
and all the other facilities, performers, and spectators who
use our services.''
The economic foundation that supported artists in the past
is crumbling. Piracy is threatening their livelihood. Secondary
ticketing is driving up prices for the fans with absolutely no
benefit to the artist.
Needless to say, that experiment has failed miserably.
Independent venues have been crushed. Artists have lost
leverage. Fans are paying more than ever and getting blamed for
it.
Should Ticketmaster and Live Nation be broken up? Probably.
Would that alone fix things? Not sure it would. But I am sure
of this, no artist should be forced to sell their tickets
without a say in who sells them and how they are sold.
What other business in America does not control or at least
have a say in their own inventory? If artists had real choice,
real competition would follow and tickets would end up in the
hands of real fans at the prices we, the artists, set.
It is no secret--it is no secret, none, that this industry
is full of greedy snakes and scoundrels, too many suits lining
their pockets off talent they never had and fans they mislead.
The truth is much of this could have been or still could be
solved through technology, especially proof of humanity tools.
It has not happened yet because there is just too much money in
the secondary ticket market.
Ticketing companies did not fail to stop this. It seems
they chose not to. In parts--now, meanwhile, the problem has
been addressed with much success overseas. In parts of Europe,
resale ticket prices are capped and it seems to be working.
I have been advocating for a 10 percent price cap here in
the states on the resale of a ticket and in fairness--in
fairness, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have supported this cap.
Where I am confused is this. I do not think Ticketmaster
needs a law passed to do this. If that is true, then it only
proves these companies have not been reactive--have not been
reactive--have been reactive, not proactive.
I would implore Congress--this is important--to subpoena
the contracts and deals between artists, promoters, buildings,
ticketing companies, agencies, and vendors because as I
understand it, you will find mountains of fraud and abuse.
Now, my positions and solutions are as follows. Number one,
artists should control who sells their tickets and how.
Number two, resale ticket price caps work and protect real
fans.
Number three, the BOTS Act should be enforced. Brokers and
bad actors must be stopped and all should face serious
penalties and consequences. All-in pricing is great, but it
does not fix the system. Outlawing speculative ticketing is
obvious.
The problem is that ticketing lobbyists push these reforms
as cover, while fighting to keep tickets in an open market and
lets them exploit fans under the guise of capitalism.
Do not be fooled by these tactics. Congress and many others
have been fooled since the mid-1990s, fooled again in 2009 and
so on. This was not an experiment; it was a monopoly dressed up
as innovation.
So I will close now with the words of one of my favorite
rock bands, The Who, and say it is my sincere hope we will not
get fooled again.
Thank you. Rock on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritchie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert J Ritchie/Kid Rock
Good afternoon. Thank you Senator Blackburn and committee members
for this opportunity.
My name is Robert Ritchie aka Kid Rock. I'm proud to say I have
been packing arenas, amphitheaters and stadiums with the greatest fans
on earth for over 25 years.
I am also a capitalist.
I'm here today because I love God, I love this country, I love live
music and sports, and I believe music fans and artists have been
getting screwed for far too long by the ticketing system.
I'm in a unique position to testify because unlike most of my peers
I am beholden to no one.
No record label.
No manager.
No corporate endorsements or deals.
To put it plainly, I ain't scared to speak out on these issues like
many artists, managers and agents are.
I'm also not here for personal gain. I'm here because hard working
Americans who love live music deserve better, and because artists
deserve control over their own work.
And let's be clear--this is FAR from a new problem.
Thirty years ago, members of the rock band Pearl Jam sat in these
same seats, warning Congress about ticketing abuse.
In 2009, Congress was told--under oath--that merging Live Nation
and Ticketmaster would benefit artists and fans.
The CEO of Live Nation called the merger an ``experiment'' and
promised it would increase competition, empower artists, and lower
costs. He also said, and I quote ``a system that empowers artists
benefits everyone.''
The CEO of Ticketmaster also testified in 2009 and said
``We believe the combination of our two companies will benefit
artists, fans, theater, sports teams, museums and all the other
facilities, performers and spectators who use our services.''.
. .. . .. ``The economic foundation that supported artists in
the past is crumbling. Piracy is threatening their livelihood.
Secondary ticketing is driving up prices for the fans with
absolutely no benefit to the artist.''
Needless to say, that experiment has failed miserably.
Independent venues have been crushed.
Artists have lost leverage.
Fans are paying more than ever--and getting blamed for it.
Should Ticketmaster and Live Nation be broke up?
Probably.
Would that alone fix things? I'm not sure it would.
But I am sure of this: no artist should be forced to sell their
tickets without a say in who sells them and how they are sold.
What other business in America doesn't control or have a say in its
own inventory?
If artists had real choice, real competition would follow. And
tickets would end up in the hands of real fans--at the prices the
artists set.
Its no secret this industry is full of greedy snakes and
scoundrels. Too many suits lining their pockets off talent they never
had and fans they mislead.
The truth is, much of this could have been or will be solved
through technology--especially proof-of-humanity tools. It hasn't
happened yet because there's just too much money in the secondary
ticket market.
Ticketing companies didn't fail to stop this--it seems they chose
not too.
Meanwhile, this problem has been addressed with much success over
seas.
In parts of Europe, resale ticket prices are capped. And it seems
to be working. I've been advocating for a 10 percent cap here in the
States, and in fairness, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have supported a
cap on the resale of a ticket. Where I'm confused is I don't think
Ticketmaster needs a law passed to do this? If that's true, than it
only proves these companies have been reactive, not proactive.
I would employ Congress to subpoena the contracts and deals between
the artists/promoters/buildings/ticketing companies/agencies and
vendors because as I understand it, you will find mountains of fraud
and abuse.
My position and solutions are as follows:
1: Artists should control who sells their tickets and HOW.
2: Resale ticket price caps work and protect real fans.
3: The Bots Act should be enforced, brokers and bad actors must be
stopped and all should face serious penalties and consequences
All-in pricing is great but it doesn't fix the system.
Outlawing speculative ticketing is obvious. The problem is that
ticketing lobbyists push these reforms as cover--while fighting to keep
tickets in an `open market' that lets them exploit fans under the guise
of capitalism. Don't be fooled by these tactics.
Congress and many others have been fooled since the mid 90s.
Fooled again in 2009, so on and so forth.
This wasn't an experiment--it was a monopoly dressed up as
innovation.
So I'll close now with the words of one of my favorite rock bands,
The Who: and say it is my sincere hope
``We won't get fooled again.''
Thank you and Rock on.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Wall, you are recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN WALL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
CORPORATE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Wall. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Hickenlooper, and other members of the Subcommittee. I am Dan
Wall, Executive Vice President for Corporate and Regulatory
Affairs at Live Nation.
I thank you for the invitation to appear today. Just like
the members of this subcommittee, we love the live
entertainment experience, the magic of the show or the big
game, and we are proud of our contribution to the explosive
growth in the industry.
Today, there are more shows than ever before, more artists
touring, and more tickets available to fans at every price
point.
We are also proud that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have
led the industry in working with artists in particular, and
finding solutions to the problems in the ticketing marketplace
that frustrate fans.
We are proud that our resale marketplace stands alone in
putting the interests of artists and fans first, in sharp
contrast to the ticket broker-driven business models of the
secondary resellers represented at this table.
And we actively support public policy initiatives and
reforms on transparency and unfair resale practices, the kinds
of things addressed by the MAIN Event Act and the TICKET Act,
and on these issues Live Nation consistently stands with
artists, with venues, and with fans, and in opposition to
ticket brokers and other resale marketplaces.
We are acutely aware of the frustrations fans feel about
their ability to get tickets to in-demand shows, the kinds of
things that you mentioned in your opening statement, Madam
Chair.
How are those--how are so many tickets getting into the
hands of scalpers? Well, the short answer is through an
increasingly sophisticated technology package that is
automating the business of ticket scalping.
For a long time, we thought of this as the bots problem,
and that remains a problem. Through Senator Blackburn's
leadership, the principal law on this subject is the BOTS Act
of 2016.
The problem is only escalating. Our data shows an
extraordinary escalation in bot attacks. Four years ago in
2022, we were blocking roughly 37 million bots per day. Yet, in
the fourth quarter of 2025 alone, we blocked 566 million bots
per day on average.
That is a 15-fold increase in three years and, obviously,
we cannot block that many unless we are being attacked by that
many or more.
And the problem is not just bots. We are facing a
proliferation of ticket harvesting technologies. The scalper's
technological toolkit has expanded and now includes software
that allows users to manage multiple browsing sessions
simultaneously, proxy services that mask a user's true IP
address, and software that creates a massive number of fake
ticket accounts.
Incredibly, Ticketmaster now receives up to 25 million
account sign-up attempts every day, 99.7 of which we reject
because our technologies determine they are not real fans.
We are fighting back with the most sophisticated defenses
out there, including most recently identity verification, which
is the technology that Kid Rock mentioned.
Live Nation is also giving artists new and powerful tools
to fight scalping such as our face value exchange, a service
that permits tickets to be sold for what the first purchaser
paid and no more.
We know, as the Chair has said many times, that doing all
of this and addressing these problems is our job. We do not
shirk that responsibility at all.
We, in fact, are stepping up to it like never before, and
yet our artists and fans still need help, which we hope will be
the focus of this hearing.
Now, I know that some of you will want to ask about the
FTC's lawsuit against Ticketmaster for allegedly violating the
BOTS Act. My October 17 letter to Senators Blackburn and Lujan
goes into this in some detail.
What I want to say now, Madam Chair, especially to you and
Senator Lujan, is that your letter to our company after the
lawsuit was filed did get us thinking about this as more than a
legal issue between us and the FTC.
You pointedly asked us why Ticketmaster allows brokers to
maintain multiple accounts and use them to join on sales to buy
tickets. That prompted us to take a harder look at our own
policies and implement changes that we hope creates a better
experience for fans.
We have made big changes. Ticketmaster policy is now to
limit everyone and every entity, ticket brokers included, to
only one Ticketmaster account.
We will no longer let any broker maintain, buy concert
tickets with, or post resale tickets for concerts using more
than one account, and we will not allow any broker to post more
tickets on our resale marketplace than the posted ticket limit
for the show.
In closing, I submit to you the real question is how we are
going to get others to do the same thing. The broker-first
resale sites will never do this voluntarily. Their business is
80 to 100 percent broker driven. About 3 percent of our income
comes from the resale of concert tickets.
So when you look at it from that perspective, the question
is what can we do to get them to comply.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel M. Wall, Executive Vice President,
Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Hickenlooper, Senator Lujan, and
other Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Dan Wall, Executive Vice
President for Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. I thank you for the invitation to appear today to
address important issues in the live entertainment industry.
We are grateful that this subcommittee--particularly its
leadership--includes many long-time advocates for the live event
industry and the millions of fans who attend our events.
The issues we are here to discuss are very important to Live Nation
and Ticketmaster, and to me personally. All of us at Live Nation and
Ticketmaster love the live entertainment experience--the magic of the
show or the big game. And we are proud of our contribution to the
explosive growth of the industry. Today, there are:
More shows than ever before
More artists touring at every level
More consumer choice--from $25 lawn seats to full-blown VIP
experiences
More innovation in production and performance--creating
once-in-a-lifetime memories for millions of fans
Yet we are also acutely aware of the many frustrations fans feel
about their ability to get tickets to the most popular shows--
especially when, somehow, tickets to those shows are showing up on
resale sites at enormous markups. In fact, because of the practice
called speculative ticketing, they appear to be available on many
resale sites even before there has been an onsale.
So how are so many tickets getting in the hands of scalpers? The
short answer is through increasingly sophisticated ticket harvesting
technologies.
For many years we have talked about this as the bots problem. And
through Senator Blackburn's leadership, as well as others on this
subcommittee including Senators Moran and Lujan, the principal
legislation we have on this subject is the BOTS Act of 2016. Bots are
essentially automated purchase scripts that can complete the process of
buying a ticket much faster than any human. They also swarm onsales at
massive scale. Ticketmaster has been routinely fending off millions of
bots for years, but the scale of the bots problem today is remarkable.
Our data show that throughout 2022 we were blocking roughly 1.1 billion
bots per month, 37 million bots per day. While those are large numbers,
they are a fraction of what we are experiencing today. By 2024, blocks
had increased to 6.8 billion per month, or 227 million per day. And
then we get to 2025, where in the fourth quarter alone, just three
months, we blocked 51 billion malicious bots or 566 million bots per
day on average. Put it all together and since 2022, blocks have
increased by over 3,600 percent.
We are proud that our Fraud and Abuse teams have improved their
game to the point that we can block hundreds of millions of bots every
day. It is an incredible achievement. Yet we can only block hundreds of
millions of bots every day because we are being attacked by hundreds of
millions of bots every day. That is the root of the problem: there is
an industry of scalper accomplices directing massive bot attacks at us
all the time.
Bots are also only one technique the scalping industry uses to
intercept tickets that artists want to sell to real fans. Last year, in
our Comments in response to President Trump's Executive Order on
Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market, we called
attention to the proliferation of ticketing harvesting technologies.
Among the many tools that are now available to ticket scalpers are:
Browser Extensions and Multi-Session Tools: Software that
allows users to manage multiple browsing sessions
simultaneously.
Proxy Services: Tools that mask a user's true IP address and
location.
Virtual Credit Card Services: Enterprise payment platforms that
generate multiple virtual credit card numbers and billing
addresses.
Tools to Evade SafeTix Protections: Used to transfer tickets
meant to be non-transferable and conceal ticket transfer
patterns that we use as a signal of a bad actor.
Data Scraping and Analysis Tools: Software for gathering and
analyzing ticket availability and pricing data.
Comprehensive Resale Platforms: Integrated solutions for large-
scale reselling including technology that automates pricing,
selling and delivery.
One of the manifestations of this new technology is that we are now
facing large-scale efforts to create Ticketmaster accounts and
obfuscate their ownership. Those numbers are staggering too.
Ticketmaster now receives up to 25 million account sign-up attempts
every day, 99.7 percent of which we reject because our technologies
determine these are not real fans. Over the past two years, our systems
have prevented more than one billion fraudulent account creations,
systematically dismantling bot network infrastructure before it can
impact fans. We are now in the process of aggressively using our latest
risk models to identify existing Ticketmaster accounts that are likely
not owned by real fans and disabling their ability to purchase tickets.
As part of that program, we use an identify verification technology to
give the owners of the suspect accounts an opportunity to prove they
are real humans, and what we find is that well over 90 percent of the
time whoever owns these accounts does not even try to pass identify
verification. They abandon the account and we shut it down. In the
recent past, over 2 million accounts were shut down through this
process and related initiatives.
As Ticketmaster fights to keep the bad actors at bay, we are also
using our account scoring and queue-ordering systems to elevate real
fans to the front of our queues. In the past two years we have
substantially improved the fan attendance rate and the probability that
accounts at the front of our queues are real fans has increased by 66
percent. Accounts at the front of the queue are now nearly two times
more likely to attend the show than those at the end of the queue, a
direct reflection of our improved abuse modeling. Unfortunately, the
scalpers are trying to undermine this effort as well. They are
funneling tickets they acquire through a third-party service that hides
the transfer from us so that we think the original purchaser attended
the show. I can assure you we are working on this right now.
We are also seeing more artists embrace our Face Value Exchange, a
service that allows artists to restrict transfers to a marketplace that
only permits tickets to be sold for what the first purchaser paid.
Despite extensive efforts by scalpers and other resale marketplaces to
hack the system, Face Value Exchange dramatically reduces scalping.
There was clear evidence of this during Billie Eilish's 2025 tour. Ms.
Eilish turned on Face Value Exchange in every state she could, but not
in three states (NY, IL and CO) where there are anti-artist laws that
do not allow restrictions on ticket transfers. Where Face Value
Exchange was not used, we saw a 40 percent rate for full-order
transfers (i.e., every ticket purchased in a transaction was
transferred to someone else, a strong signal that a ticket broker
bought those tickets). In contrast, where Face Value Exchange was used,
the rate of full-order transfers dropped to just 5 percent. And yes,
scalpers are trying to undermine Face Value Exchange too. Everything
that works to protect the intended artist-fan connection gets targeted
by the scalpers.
The FTC's BOTS Act Case
I want to address briefly the FTC's lawsuit against Ticketmaster
for allegedly violating the BOTS Act. My October 17, 2024, letter to
Senators Blackburn and Lujan goes into this at some detail, so I will
try to keep these remarks succinct.
We were both surprised and disappointed by this lawsuit since
Ticketmaster is, without question, the principal target of the bad
actors that use bots and related technological exploits to acquire
tickets for resale. We think it is clear from the legislative history
of the BOTS Act that it was meant to help primary ticketing companies
fight off the bots by adding a layer of legal protections to the
technological defenses we put up to stop ticket harvesting. Prior to
the FTC's lawsuit, we never conceived of the BOTS Act as creating any
obligations for Ticketmaster, and we did not think that brokers buying
tickets with multiple accounts was, by itself, a BOTS Act violation.
Instead, we understood the BOTS Act to be a first but important
step in addressing the growing problem of ticket scalpers using
technological exploits to buy substantial volumes of tickets from
primary ticketing companies like Ticketmaster. To that end, the BOTS
Act makes it unlawful for any person ``to circumvent a security
measure, access control system, or other technological control or
measure'' that a primary ticketing company uses ``to enforce posted
event ticket purchasing limits or to maintain the integrity of posted
online ticket purchasing order rules.'' The act of circumventing a
technological control is illegal on its own. But then a companion
section makes it illegal ``to sell or offer to sell'' any ticket
acquired through circumvention if the seller participated in the
circumvention, controlled the circumvention, or ``knew or should have
known that the event ticket was acquired'' through circumvention. Here
is a graphical representation of how we understand the statute works.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
At its core, the BOTS Act targets three things a scalper might do:
it might circumvent our controls itself, it might get someone else to
circumvent our controls, and it will sell or at least try to sell the
tickets acquired through circumvention.
The FTC case is based on a fundamentally novel and expansionist
view of the BOTS Act that makes it illegal for ticket buyers to
circumvent ticket limits--full stop--not just technological controls
protecting ticket limits. They have written ``technological controls or
measures'' out of the statute, deeming that unnecessary to finding
circumvention. And upon that foundation, they claim that whenever a
secondary ticketing marketplace sees that an individual or entity is
posting more tickets than the one-account ticket limit, the marketplace
knows there has been circumvention and therefore also violates the BOTS
Act.
We respectfully disagree that the number of tickets one is selling
shows that the seller ``circumvent[ed] a security measure, access
control system, or other technological control or measure'' in the
course of acquiring those tickets. Indeed, the FTC's position is that
we allowed these purchases, which obviates the need for the buyer to
circumvent anything. Furthermore, the FTC's position leads to the
implausible conclusion that the vast majority of all concert ticket
resales are in violation of the BOTS Act--especially the sales on
StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats.
The reason for this is because the FTC's real complaint is that
ticket brokers use multiple accounts to buy tickets. That much is true.
Ticket brokers have had multiple accounts for a very long time--long
before Ticketmaster entered the secondary ticketing business in 2014,
and even before StubHub created the first successful secondary ticket
marketplace in the early 2000s. This practice harkens back to the days
of physical tickets, when ticket brokers would often have a number of
employees or others paid to stand in line and purchase concert
tickets--a practice that was generally accepted in the industry.
Similarly, it was generally accepted that a broker with multiple
employees could have each person hold an account and separately
purchase tickets. All this can be done legitimately under the rules of
the primary ticketing companies without having to resort to any
unlawful behavior or technological circumventions.
One also needs to understand that ticket resale is dominated by
broker inventory. StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats live and die by
ticket brokers, getting 80 to 100 percent of their inventory from
brokers. And while there are lots of ways brokers acquire inventory,
many plainly illegal, using multiple accounts is one method and not
inherently illegal. To be sure, it has gotten out of hand, especially
since scalpers developed automated tools for creating Ticketmaster
accounts. I will address below what we are doing about that at
Ticketmaster. But my point for now is that if one reads ``technological
controls or measures'' out of the BOTS Act, then every ticket broker
and every resale site has been openly and continuously violating the
BOTS Act since the day it was passed without the FTC raising a finger
to stop it.
Ironically, just days before the FTC staff revealed their new
theory, we had urged President Trump to support an expansion of the
BOTS Act that was not limited to circumvention of technological
controls. We argued that the required inquiry into whether there is
circumvention of security measures does not capture the full range of
improper ticket harvesting tactics that we face. We have urged an
amendment to the BOTS Act or language in the MAIN Event Act that would
make circumvention of security measures subordinate to a broader
prohibition that makes it unlawful for ticket brokers ``to use or cause
to be used any software application that runs automated tasks over the
Internet to purchase event tickets from an Internet website or online
ticket marketplace.'' Live Nation and Ticketmaster are on the side of a
stronger BOTS Act and aggressive BOTS Act enforcement. That we find
ourselves on the receiving end of a BOTS Act claim is deeply
unfortunate.
Addressing the Proliferation of Broker Accounts
If nothing else, the FTC's lawsuit has focused attention on the
fact that ticket brokers now have far too many Ticketmaster accounts.
What started as a reasonable and acceptable level of behavior has been
abused, largely through technologies that permit multiple accounts to
be created, hidden and used at scale. It's unfair to artists and fans
and it is time to do something about it.
My October 17 letter to Senators Blackburn and Lujan announced a
series of steps Ticketmaster is taking to address this issue.
1. Ticketmaster policy is now to limit everyone and every entity,
ticket brokers included, to only one Ticketmaster account.
2. We will no longer let any broker maintain, buy concert tickets
with, or post resale tickets for concerts using more than one
account.
3. We will not allow any broker to post more tickets on our resale
marketplace than the posted ticket limit for the show. To that
end, we now require every account that wishes to post tickets
for resale on Ticketmaster to have a unique Taxpayer
Identification Number (SSN or EID).
Enforcing these new policies effectively is and will remain
exceedingly difficult; I do not want to understate that. We know
scalpers will do everything in their power to undermine us, first and
foremost by ramping up their efforts to create and conceal new
portfolios of Ticketmaster accounts. But fortunately, we have new AI
tools, risk models, and identity verification technology that we can
apply to these efforts. We have already made substantial progress, but
this will be an ongoing battle.
Going Forward
I would be remiss if I did not speak the plain truth that so long
as there is a $10-15 billion ticket resale market in the United States,
we will always be under siege from new and improved scalper technology.
All these problems that plague resale--the bots, speculative ticketing,
the sale of fraudulent tickets, and so much more--are because for-
profit ticket scalping now takes place at an industrial scale. The
resale industry regularly argues that it exists to facilitate fan-to-
fan exchanges--often in sympathetic scenarios such as when a fan gets
ill at the last minute. But that is not what fuels the likes of
StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. These sites exist to serve ticket
brokers first and foremost. And the fuel of this industry is that,
without putting on a show or paying artists a dime, the broker can on
average resell a concert ticket for twice its face value, and on every
such transaction these resale sites are getting a 25-40 percent
commission from the buyer--a commission far larger than the 5-7 percent
``take rate'' that Ticketmaster gets for its share of service fees on
primary tickets.
These resale markets cry out for reform. We need clear, legally
enforceable rules that in the first place put the content creators--
artists, teams, etc.--in charge of what happens to the tickets to their
events. If they want to ban resale, they should be able to do so
without interference from state or Federal laws. If they want to permit
resale, but under conditions, that is their right as well. There should
be a unitary Federal law on this, preempting inconsistent state laws.
It should completely ban speculative ticketing, fake ticket listings
and deceptive websites. Whether by amending the BOTS Act or passing the
MAIN Event Act, we should ban all forms of automated ticket harvesting.
We appreciate there are competing points of view on this and no easy
answers, but the unregulated resale markets we have now are not working
for artists or fans.
Thank you again for inviting us to participate in today's hearing.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Berry, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN BERRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TICKET POLICY FORUM
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Chairwoman Blackburn and members of
the Subcommittee.
My name is Brian Berry and I serve as Executive Director of
the Ticket Policy Forum. Thank you for inviting me.
First and foremost, we appreciate the Committee's work on
the TICKET Act and the MAIN Event Act. The Ticket Policy Forum
represents America's leading online ticket marketplaces--
StubHub, SeatGeek, Vivid Seats, Gametime, TickPick, and Events
Ticket Center.
Importantly, these companies are not just resale
marketplaces. The world has evolved. They each have unique
business models, but several of them seek to challenge the
status quo in so-called primary ticketing and are directly
working with teams, venues, and promoters to give fans better
access to tickets and much better access to technology, and to
give these partners in the industry enhanced options when it
comes to the distribution of tickets.
To be candid, real progress in breaking through and getting
into the primary ticket has been tough--I do not need to tell
you that--mostly because the monopoly makes it that way, as the
Justice Department has detailed in its complaint against Live
Nation and Ticketmaster.
As an industry, however, we get fans into the events they
love. We help to ensure no seat goes empty. It is our
obsession.
Our member marketplaces serve tens of millions of fans
every year, providing safe, guaranteed ticket transactions and
trusted options when it comes to both buying and selling
tickets.
Further, we are proud that our online marketplaces brought
ticket resale off of street corners where fraud and
counterfeits were rampant and into the online space where they
are protected, it is transparent, it is tax paying the way it
should be.
There is one thing that nearly every one of us will agree
on and that is that the system, including the ticketing
segment, should work better for fans. Too often, for reasons
long before a ticket is even manifested or put on sale, fans
are set up to feel confused, frustrated, and shut out entirely.
But blaming ticket resale for all the problems in this
system, ticket resale being the very end of the chain,
completely misses the mark.
Significant harm to fans originates at the source in the
currently rigged system where one dominant player maintains its
powerful grip today over artist management, promotion and
tours, venue operations and venue ownership, venue ticketing,
primary ticketing, and ticket resale.
This committee and the Executive Branch have repeatedly
studied this issue and reached several important conclusions
about how to improve the fan experience. So I would like to
tell you about that. There are four items.
Number one, the FTC now requires all-in upfront pricings so
that fans are no longer misled about what the cost of their
tickets will be. We can all agree that it took too long, but it
was the right outcome.
The Department of Justice, as you know, has sued Live
Nation and Ticketmaster repeatedly, has readdressed consent
decrees, and now will begin one of the biggest monopoly trials
of our lifetimes along with 40 state attorneys general.
Please, Department of Justice, stay the course and finish
the job. Congress, Madam Chair, as you know, passed the BOTS
Act and the FTC is investigating and suing several alleged
violators, including Ticketmaster.
The FTC should continue to enforce the BOTS Act and we
agree the Act could benefit from enhancements to help with
enforcement through the MAIN Event Act, and in part, thanks to
this committee's leadership, the House of Representatives
passed the TICKET Act to address things we can all agree upon--
refund protection, deceptive websites, and deceptive
speculative tickets.
This committee passed it by voice vote. Now, this bill if
it were to become law would require significant re-engineering
and investment and change from our member marketplaces.
We accept that. We embrace that because it is the right
thing to do for the fan. We urge this committee to send it to
the President to be signed into law.
You are going to hear a lot of disagreement today. However,
there is far more, believe me, that the four of us sitting here
agree on than we disagree on.
Go after illegal bots. Ban deceptive websites and ban
deceptive speculative ticketing. Our platforms support stronger
fan protections that include more transparency, less deception,
and more enforcement of fraud and abuse.
What we cannot support and do not, however, is completely
locking fans out with other options, eliminating legitimate
resale, driving resale into fraudulent black markets, and
giving more monopolistic control to one company under the false
banner of reform.
I encourage you to resist framing this debate about a zero-
sum fight between good and bad players because the fight is
about the fan. For the consumer, it is about banning bots,
against deception, and against fraud.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Berry, Executive Director,
Ticket Policy Forum
Chairwoman Blackburn, Ranking Member Hickenlooper, and members of
the Subcommittee: My name is Brian Berry, and I serve as Executive
Director of the Ticket Policy Forum. Thank you for inviting me to
testify on the vital role that secondary ticket markets play in the
live event ecosystem.
The Ticket Policy Forum represents America's leading online ticket
marketplaces: StubHub, SeatGeek, Vivid Seats, TickPick, Gametime, and
Events Ticket Center. Importantly, these companies are not just resale
platforms. Several of them seek to challenge the status quo in so-
called primary ticketing and are working directly with teams, venues,
and promoters to give fans better access, better technology and user
experiences, and expanded choice for ticketing distribution partners.
But real progress has been tough, mostly because the dominant player
(who controls around 80 percent or more of major concert venue
ticketing) keeps getting in the way and, as the Justice Department
details, allegedly bullies venues into utilizing its services. Bottom
line: competition in primary ticketing isn't just small, it remains
fragile.
Our member marketplaces serve tens of millions of happy fans every
year, providing safe, guaranteed ticket transactions, real competition
in pricing and service, and trusted options when it comes to buying and
selling tickets. We are proud that our online marketplaces brought
resale off street corners where fraud and counterfeits were rampant,
and into the world of transparent, protected, tax-paying e-commerce.
There is one thing nearly everyone agrees on: the entire live
events ecosystem, including the ticketing segment, should work better
for fans. Too often, for reasons that begin long before a ticket is put
on sale, fans can feel confused, frustrated, or shut out entirely. But
access to tickets is just the result of a long chain of events,
relationships, and industry power plays that have been the subject of
deep investigation. Therefore, we caution the Subcommittee to avoid
defaulting to convenient scapegoats rather than digging deeper into the
facts. Blaming ticket resale for all problems in ticketing misses the
mark. Significant fan harm originates at the source in the currently
rigged system designed and dominated by a single, vertically integrated
monopoly that maintains a powerful grip over artist management, event
promotion, venue operations, and ticketing.
Problems in ticketing have been repeatedly studied over the last
two decades by lawmakers, industry, consumer advocates, and regulators.
This process reached several important conclusions about how to improve
the fan experience and, as a result:
The FTC now requires all-in, upfront pricing so fans are not
confused or misled about the price of tickets they are
purchasing. We can all agree this took too long, but it's the
right outcome.
The Department of Justice has sued Live Nation/Ticketmaster
repeatedly, agreed to several consent decrees to change how
Live Nation/Ticketmaster operates, and soon a break-up monopoly
trial will begin where the DOJ is joined by a bipartisan group
of 40 state attorneys general. The Department of Justice should
stay on the case until the job is done.
Congress passed the BOTS Act, and the FTC is investigating
and suing several alleged violators, including Ticketmaster.
The FTC should keep enforcing the BOTS Act, and we agree that
the Act could benefit from updates to improve enforcement.
In part, thanks to this Committee's years of leadership, The
House of Representatives passed the overwhelmingly bipartisan
TICKET Act to address refund protection, deceptive websites,
and speculative ticket offers. We urge the Committee to push
the Senate to send the TICKET Act to the President's desk. That
would be a monumentally important accomplishment.
Finishing this work--from the DOJ and FTC lawsuits to Congress and
the TICKET Act--will usher in the most significant live event ticket
reforms since tickets first went online.
I should note that enactment of the TICKET Act will require
investment and change across the industry, including from our member
companies. We accept that because it will improve the market in a way
that benefits fans.
As aforementioned, our platforms support stronger fan protections
that include more transparency, less deception, and more enforcement
against fraud and abuse. What we do not support are policies that
restrict legitimate resale, eliminate consumer choice, or further
entrench monopolistic control under the false banner of reform.
Policymakers should resist framing ticketing reform as a zero-sum
fight between ``good'' and ``bad'' players. The real divide in
ticketing reform is not between primary and secondary markets. It's
between systems that empower fans and systems that lock them into a
single platform with no alternatives.
SECONDARY MARKETS CLEANED UP RESALE AND COUNTERFEITS
Twenty-five years ago, buying or selling resale tickets could be a
gamble. If you couldn't make an event, you were often stuck with the
ticket and there was no simple way to resell it. Ticketholders would
scramble at the last minute to find a friend, coworker, or neighbor to
take the seat. If that didn't work, the ticket (and your money) went to
waste, and the event venue ended up with empty seats.
Meanwhile, fans trying to buy tickets outside of supposedly sold-
out events had no safe options. You would have to give cash to a
stranger on a street corner or meet someone whom you found in a sketchy
online forum. No guarantees, no refunds, and no accountability. It was
common to end up with counterfeit tickets.
Legitimate resale platforms changed that. Starting in 2000, StubHub
introduced real consumer protections, including money-back guarantees,
secure payment processing, and delivery verification, that simply
didn't exist before. Other companies, including our members, also then
entered the market to meet a significant consumer need and demand: safe
and reliable access to tickets in a way that empowered fans. What was
once a shadowy transaction is now one of the most transparent, secure,
and flexible ways to attend a live event.
Online marketplaces don't just protect buyers, they empower ticket
holders too. With just a few clicks, a season ticket holder who can't
make one game out of 40 can set a price and instantly reach thousands
of interested fans. What used to be a frustrating, local-only problem
is now a global opportunity to recover costs and pass the experience on
to someone else.
This has leveled the playing field. Someone in Colorado can now
sell a ticket to a buyer from Tennessee visiting Red Rocks Amphitheater
for the first time. A fan who missed the initial on-sale, be it a
teacher or nurse who couldn't leave work and be on their computer
screen at 10:00 am, now has other options to see their favorite artist.
``Sold out'' no longer means inaccessible.
And here's the most important part: the buyer determines the price.
Sellers can list tickets at whatever amount they are willing to accept,
but the transaction only happens when a fan decides what the ticket is
actually worth to them. If you see an over-priced ticket listed on a
marketplace, it is there for a reason--it hasn't sold, isn't worth it,
and may likely never sell at or near the overvalued listed price.
THE SECONDARY RESALE MARKET SAVES FANS MILLIONS
The resale market not only improves access to events, it also
frequently improves affordability. Contrary to popular myths, many
resale tickets sell for below face value, often well below face value--
especially as the event approaches. The headlines focus on the Taylor
Swift or BTS tours--but there are countless affordable shows, sports
games, theatre and comedy shows that don't make for a flashy story.
According to the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen
Research, in 2024, lower cost resale tickets were sold for 62 percent
of events when compared to their original box office purchase price.
The total value of savings was $414 million across 10.4 million tickets
sold for below cost. The average savings was $40 per ticket and the
average ticket price reduction over time (from the public on-sale to
the final month before the event) was $29. Generally speaking, on the
secondary resale market, offered prices dip by about one-third from the
month when the event goes on sale and the final month before the event.
From last-minute plans or bargain-seeking fans, resale platforms
drive downward pricing pressure that benefits consumers, boosts
attendance, and helps fill seats in venues around the country.
Thanks to TPF member companies, the result is a more flexible,
competitive and transparent ticket industry where fans can browse
tickets from their phones at their convenience, compare prices across
platforms, and purchase with confidence. Thanks to these companies,
fans are not held captive to one dominant company anymore. Instead,
fans have alternatives and can comparison shop based on price and
availability.
A BROKEN SYSTEM HELD HOSTAGE BY MONOPOLY POWER
Today's fans pay the price for a live event ticketing system that
is broken. It is broken because one company, Live Nation/Ticketmaster,
wields unprecedented market power over every aspect of the ticketing
supply chain--from artist management to venue operations, from primary
ticket sales to secondary ticket resale, and even down to the
concessions sold at the show. This is not an allegation, it is an
observable, measurable reality demonstrated by the DOJ's and 40 state
attorneys general bringing a far-reaching antitrust lawsuit in 2024
against Live Nation/Ticketmaster. The case is scheduled to go to trial
five weeks from now, on March 2nd, in the United States District Court
in the Southern District of New York.
According to data in the DOJ's complaint and according to the
Department's lawyers at a recent hearing, Live Nation/Ticketmaster
controls more than 265 concert venues in North America and manages more
than 400 music artists. The data assert that Live Nation Entertainment
also controls about 87 percent of the concert ticketing market through
its Ticketmaster subsidiary and more than 65 percent of the concert
promotion market through Live Nation. And don't forget: Ticketmaster is
also among the largest ticket resale platforms, and is actively seeking
to dominate resale just as it has primary ticketing.
Being such a dominant vertically integrated entity gives Live
Nation/Ticketmaster free rein to abuse its monopoly power, and it does
just that. Venues interested in using ticketing systems other than
Ticketmaster report that Live Nation, in true predatory fashion, has
threatened to withhold or limit how often and when Live Nation-promoted
artists will appear in their buildings. Ticketmaster contracts are
typically exclusive, multi-year, and structured to punish defection to
rivals. In fact, DOJ attorneys argue that venues that left Ticketmaster
in favor of another ticket seller ended up losing about five concerts
per year promoted by Live Nation, which meant losing a combined $1.5
million in revenue, or more than $300,000 per event. These Live Nation/
Ticketmaster exclusive agreements, and how they are leveraged, are the
keystone of a vertically integrated monopoly that chokes off
competition at every stage and level of the live event industry.
This vertical dominance means Live Nation/Ticketmaster is not
merely a player--it is the rule maker, the gatekeeper, and the toll
collector. No artist can tour at scale without navigating Live Nation/
Ticketmaster's murky ecosystem. No venue can reasonably opt out without
significant risk of losing shows. And fans can barely avoid them, if at
all.
Ticketmaster leverages its technology to abuse fans and foreclose
competition
The DOJ also alleges that Ticketmaster's use of its SafeTix anti-
fraud and anti-counterfeit technology is used to shut out rivals. With
SafeTix, tickets are confined within Ticketmaster's app with frequently
changing QR codes for entry. According to the complaint, internal Live
Nation/Ticketmaster documents show that one motivation behind SafeTix
and making tickets non-transferable was to make it harder for ticket
buyers and sellers to use alternative or rival secondary ticket
marketplaces. This means that consumers, whether they are buying or
selling, are locked into whatever fees Ticketmaster charges.
Ticketmaster's behavior with SafeTix is evidence that the
technology serves the company for purposes beyond fraud prevention. The
complaint cites internal remarks describing non-transferable digital
tickets as a ``game-changer'' and a ``product enhancement . . . for
market share'' suggesting SafeTix was intended to expand Ticketmaster's
control over both primary ticket sales and the resale market.
Restricting Ticketmaster's ability to abuse its technology to lock-
in consumers and create uncertainty--such that consumers feel
discouraged from buying and selling from its rivals--will hopefully be
one of the outcomes of the DOJ lawsuit, if not by FTC action or an act
of Congress. Ticketmaster should not be empowered to cancel or
invalidate tickets that it previously sold but that were resold on a
rival's platform. Consumers feel the greatest harm when Ticketmaster
does this, leaving them fearful of buying from other ticketing
platforms and being stranded outside of events despite holding
legitimate tickets.
Since the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger in 2010, the average
price of concert tickets has risen by over 120 percent--a figure that
significantly outpaces inflation. But it's not just about higher
prices. It's about how those prices are set and who controls access.
Ticketmaster was found by enforcers to routinely and secretly hold
back ticket inventory from the public on-sale. Often these hold backs
are directed by the event promoter Live Nation. According to a report
by the NY Attorney General's Office, it is common for half of a popular
concert's tickets to secretly be held back. Overall, less than half (46
percent) are reserved for the general public. For some concerts, the
percentage of tickets made available to the general public was as low
as 12 percent of total tickets for the event, yet fans are left
presuming nefarious bots scooped up all the tickets when really they
remained secretly held-back to deceivingly manufacture scarcity.
Consumers without exclusive access to pre-sales or special credit
cards are abused during the public on-sale of tickets, where they may
miss work and spend hours in an online waiting room only to be left
with intentionally opaque options. When the true inventory of tickets
or the fact that holdbacks are being used is not disclosed to fans, it
is impossible for consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.
This is not how healthy or pro-consumer markets function. It is not
how innovation is fostered. And it is not how fans should be treated.
As the DOJ puts it, ``fans have been denied access to the benefits a
competitive process would deliver, such as more choices in concerts and
innovative fan-friendly ticketing options.''
Live Nation/Ticketmaster typically deflects criticism by pointing
to bots or the resale market. But let's be clear: Ticketmaster is deep
into resale. As the pending antitrust lawsuit makes clear, its goal is
to monopolize the resale segment of the industry as well. In fact, its
resale platform brought in $4.5 billion in gross transaction volume in
2022, accounting for nearly one-third of the U.S. resale market.
This is not just a ticketing problem. This is a consumer protection
crisis. Fans are being squeezed from every angle, and the only entity
that benefits is the monopoly in the middle of almost every
transaction.
COMMON GROUND: SUPPORTING THE TICKET ACT
Many of the problems experienced in the market are symptoms of the
harmful, anticompetitive practices of the monopoly. However, that does
not mean there are no ways to improve the fan experience in the resale
industry as well. Deceptive practices, such as fake websites that
masquerade as local venues and deceptive speculative ticketing, harm
fans and undermine trust in the entire ticketing ecosystem.
Ticket Policy Forum proudly supports the bipartisan TICKET Act,
which passed the House in 2025 with an extraordinary 409 to 15 vote and
passed the Senate Commerce Committee on a voice vote. This legislation
addresses many of the real problems fans face:
Requires upfront, all-in pricing so fans know exactly what
they'll pay. This codifies the new FTC pricing rules into
Federal law.
Cracks down on deceptive websites that masquerade as
official venue sites to trick consumers.
Guarantees refunds for canceled shows and provides
flexibility for postponed events fans can no longer attend.
Directs the FTC to issue a report on bots and BOTS Act
enforcement. To its credit, the FTC has announced enforcement
action in the last year, though more is needed.
Bans deceptive speculative ticket sales. Under the TICKET
Act, sellers cannot offer tickets for sale unless they have
constructive possession of those tickets. This eliminates a
practice that has caused harm to consumers.
Creates rules and guardrails for ticket procurement services
to ensure such offerings are not co-mingled with actual
tickets. This requires such procurement services to be a
distinct and separate offering and that these services come
with clear and conspicuous disclosure that what is offered is a
service and not a ticket (until the ticket is delivered),
refund protection and guarantees. These requirements are
designed to prevent a fan from being misled in any way. No
ticket seller today offers ticket procurement services in the
way the TICKET Act would require, but TPF marketplaces have
agreed with TICKET Act authors that this approach will mitigate
deception and confusion and that such rules should be required.
If enacted, platforms will be required to re-engineer their
user experience.
The TICKET Act represents a balanced approach that protects
consumers while preserving competition. It enjoys overwhelming support
in Congress, within the industry, and among premier consumer protection
organizations. We urge the Senate to follow the House of
Representatives and pass this legislation without delay.
PRICE CONTROLS ARE THE WRONG SOLUTION
Some argue resale prices should be capped or controlled by the
government. Those ideas may sound appealing, but experience shows they
don't work. Primary sellers increasingly use dynamic pricing for
selling their tickets, so capping resale while the box office adjusts
prices higher simply distorts the market. Price controls also create
enforcement challenges and push transactions into unregulated corners
of the internet, where fraud thrives and consumer protections vanish.
This harms fans. In countries like Ireland and Australia, price
controls on high demand events did not lead to affordable tickets. To
the contrary, they hurt consumers by fueling shadow markets and scams.
Notably, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently repealed its price
cap law because it was not viewed as effective, pragmatic or
enforceable.
Legitimate consumer demand cannot be legislatively stifled. When
safe and reliable marketplaces are restricted, fans won't stop buying
and reselling. They will just do it somewhere much less safe.
REFORM REQUIRES REAL COMPETITION AND A BETTER PATH
FORWARD
The Ticket Policy Forum supports strong, meaningful protections for
fans. We stand for transparency, less deception, and rigorous
enforcement against fraud and abuse. We support ongoing Federal efforts
at the DOJ, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and in Congress to improve
the ticketing ecosystem and the fan experience. This includes our
support for enforcement of the Federal BOTS Act, the bipartisan TICKET
Act and the FTC's new all-in, upfront pricing rules.
What we do not support are policies using ``consumer protection''
as a trojan horse to restrict legitimate resale, eliminate consumer
choice, or further entrench monopolistic control under the false banner
of reform.
There is a better path forward, one that protects fans without
breaking what works. It starts with recognizing basic consumer rights:
the right to give away or sell a purchased ticket without fear of
retaliation; the right to enter with a valid ticket regardless of
whether it was purchased from the box office or repurchased from a
ticketing marketplace; and the right to meaningful transparency about
ticket allocation practices and whether dynamic pricing is being used.
Moreover, deceptive websites that pretend to be the venue or team, or
undisclosed speculative ticket offers, harm everyone and should be
banned.
CONCLUSION
We are committed to working with this Subcommittee and with
Congress and with the Administration in its efforts to improve the live
events system and fan experience.
Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Weingarden.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WEINGARDEN, CHAIR
AND CO-FOUNDER, COLORADO INDEPENDENT VENUE
ASSOCIATION (CIVA) AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR CONCERTS AND EVENTS,
Z2 ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Weingarden. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Hickenlooper, Ranking Member Cantwell, and the members
of the Subcommittee.
My name is David Weingarden, and I am grateful to be here
to discuss all of this. I am Vice President of Concerts for Z2
Entertainment.
We operate three independently owned venues across
Colorado: the Boulder Theater and Fox Theaters in Boulder,
Aggie Theater in Fort Collins, and exclusively book several
more across the state, producing approximately 700 live shows
annually.
We did not choose to become policy advocates. We chose to
run small businesses, employ local workers, and bring live
music to our communities. But the scale and aggressiveness of
the ticket scalping market has left us with no choice but to
speak up.
So what is going wrong? Fans are unnecessarily price gouged
on reseller sites when cheaper tickets are still available from
our box office. Billions of dollars in Google ads steer fans
into the scalping market.
StubHub alone spends $800 million annually to have their
website and ticket listings appear on search engines ahead of
ours. StubHub had active listings advertising $40 parking
spaces at the Merriweather Post Pavilion right here.
The problem? Parking is free at the Merriweather. Every
night our box office staff deals with fake tickets that do not
scan for seats that do not exist for events that were never
scheduled at all.
Ticket Network listed tickets for a Joey Valence and Brae
show at the Fox Theater. The problem? The show did not exist.
One fan paid more than $300 to a scalper for two Big Bad
Voodoo Daddy tickets at the Boulder Theater, which cost $27 on
our site. The reseller also promised, quote/unquote,
``guaranteed first eight rows.''
The problem? The show was standing room only. The most
extreme version of this is what resale sites call ``concierge''
or ``seat saver'' tickets, which are not tickets at all.
Fans are led to believe that they are buying a real seat,
but they are unknowingly paying overprice for a price gouge
promise that someone might try to find a ticket later. It is
purposely deceptive.
For example, the Howlin' Wolf in New Orleans was charging
$10 to a show before a single ticket had been sold. Despite
that, StubHub was listing a speculative ticket for $964.
We found seat saver tickets on Vivid Seats for Beyonce in
Houston, Atlanta, New Jersey, and Las Vegas for rows at the
venues that did not exist.
This is the core of the concierge model. Charge first,
source later, maybe. That is why the music industry does not
support the House TICKET Act as written.
It claims to ban speculative tickets but creates loopholes
that allow this deception to continue under a fancy new name.
You could not sell a car, a hotel room, or a plane ticket you
do not own and call it a service. Live shows should not be any
different.
When something goes wrong with these fake tickets and
overcharged tickets, fans do not blame the scalper who sold it
to them. They blame the venues and the artists.
We are responsible for paying artists, staffing, safety,
production, payroll, rent, performing rights organizations like
ASCAP and more.
Scalpers and their platforms do not pay any of these costs,
nothing, and they definitely do not deal with the upset and
angry fans at the door.
At Z2, we have been forced to print out and keep this
reseller customer support sheet because fans are angry and
confused that this is quite literally the only thing that we
can do to help.
Anyone who has tried to get help from these sites knows
that phones do not get answered, e-mails go nowhere, and travel
expenses are not reimbursed.
The question before Congress is not whether fans are being
harmed. They are. It is whether Federal policy will finally
catch up to the realities of ticketing in the United States.
Congress should ban speculative ticketing with zero
loopholes for schemes like seat saver, embrace bipartisan
movement in the states by passing a national ban on resale
above face value and a cap on outrageous resale fees, ban
deceptive URLs, spoof websites, and predatory search engine
advertising.
Support the U.S. Department of Justice's effort to break up
Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and close the BOTS Act
enforcement gaps by passing the Blackburn-Lujan MAIN Event
Ticketing Act.
Artists should be able to control how their tickets are
sold, the fans should be able to trust the platforms that they
use, and independent venues should not have to fight for
survival while scalpers make billions off of our risk.
We need Congress to act now. In an era defined by division,
live music continues to create connection and common ground.
Making it affordable for Americans is definitely worth fighting
for.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weingarden follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Weingarden, Vice President of Concerts +
Events, Z2 Entertainment & Colorado Independent Venue Association
Introduction
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Hickenlooper, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is David Weingarden, and I am the Vice President of
Concerts + Events for Z2 Entertainment, an independent live
entertainment company based in Boulder, Colorado. Z2 owns and operates
three independently owned venues across Colorado, including the Boulder
Theater and Fox Theatre in Boulder, the Aggie Theatre in Fort Collins,
and exclusively book additional venues in Boulder, Steamboat, Frisco.
Together, we produce approximately 700 live shows each year, featuring
artists at every stage of their careers.
I am here today not only on behalf of Z2, but also representing the
Colorado Independent Venue Association, which includes more than 100
locally owned venues across the state. All of these venues and
festivals are independent rooms ticketed by more than 20 different
ticketing services. We are also a proud member of the National
Independent Venue Association, which represents the independently-owned
venues, festivals, and promoters nationwide.
I got into this business because of a love of live music.
Independent venues exist to bring performance to new audiences, to
create shared experiences, and to serve as cultural gathering places in
our communities. We don't do this work because it's easy or highly
profitable. We do it because live music and performance matters.
While independent venues operate on tight margins, our economic
impact is significant. Across the country, independent stages support
nearly $52 billion in wages and benefits each year and contribute more
than $19 billion annually in local, state, and Federal tax revenue.\1\
In Colorado alone, independent live venues generate approximately $2.3
billion in annual economic output.\2\ Venues like ours are community
anchors and economic engines but our business model is fragile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Independent Venue Association, The 2025 State of Live
Economic Research Study (2025), https://www.nivassoc.org/stateoflive.
\2\ National Independent Venue Association, The 2025 State of Live
Report: Colorado (2025), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
5e91157c96fe495a4baf48f2/t/68e5b46c9ce4337898935182
/1759884396101/2025-NIVA-State-of-Live-Report-CO.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artists are typically paid through a guaranteed fee or a percentage
of ticket sales after show expenses, whichever is greater. Their income
is directly tied to how many tickets are sold. Venues, meanwhile, rely
heavily on food and beverage revenue to stay afloat. We staff and
budget weeks in advance based on ticket sales data, building each show
carefully to ensure we can pay artists, employ our staff, and keep our
doors open.
When something goes wrong in this ecosystem, the risk falls almost
entirely on venues and artists. We are responsible for staffing,
safety, production, payroll, and compliance regardless of what happens
in the secondary market. Resellers do not share that risk. Yet
increasingly, the practices of the secondary ticketing industry are
directly undermining the stability of businesses like ours and truly
harming the fans we serve.
Let me begin with several key points:
Fans are being systematically steered into the resale
market, where they are overcharged, misled, and frequently sold
tickets that do not exist.
Speculative and ``concierge'' tickets are simply ghost
tickets, they are not real tickets, and they must be prohibited
with no loopholes.
Congress should ban resale above face value and allow for a
reasonable fee of no more than 10 percent to be added to cover
resale processing costs so that tickets cannot be flipped at
extreme markups with unlimited add-on fees.
Congress should also ban resale before the public onsale and
prohibit deceptive URLs and spoof websites that impersonate
official venue box offices.
Congress should increase oversight of illegal bots by
strengthening and enforcing the BOTS Act and by passing the
MAIN Event Ticketing Act, a bipartisan bill led by Senator
Blackburn and Senator Lujan.
Live Nation leverages their dominant control of tours and
artists--with billions in revenue from Ticketmaster to allow
them to take losses on shows--to systematically disadvantage
independent venues and festivals. Congress should ensure the
Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice, and state
attorneys general have the support and resources they need to
break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
The Committee should be skeptical of ``consumer'' groups
like the National Consumers League and Sports Fans Coalition as
they are financed by resale platforms to lobby against real
consumer protections in ticketing.
We are one venue operator from one state, but I speak with
independent venues and festivals across the country daily. What we are
seeing is widespread and growing. This is not anecdotal. It is
systemic, and it deserves a real response that puts people over
profits.
What's Going Wrong? The Deceptive Practices Harming My Fans
One of the biggest problems we see is price gouging driven by the
secondary market. Fans regularly pay far more for tickets on secondary
sites when cheaper tickets are still available directly. That doesn't
happen because of demand. It happens because fans are pushed into the
resale market and made to believe the highly inflated prices are their
only option. In a recent IPO filing, StubHub alone spends more than
$800 million annually to have their websites and tickets appear on
search engines ahead of ours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ StubHub Holdings, Inc., Form S-1 Registration Statement (U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission), consolidated statements of
operations, reporting approximately $828 million in sales and marketing
expenses for the year ended December 31, 2024, https://www.sec.gov/
Archives/edgar/data/1337634/000119312525060140/d225849ds1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is happening right now in Colorado. As of January 23, 2026,
there are active listings on StubHub advertising $37 tickets for
Shakedown Street, a Grateful Dead cover band, performing on February
7th at the Boulder Theater. The problem? The show is free before 9pm.
As of the same date, StubHub is advertising tickets priced as high as
$342 for Oh Wonder's April 24th performance at the Boulder Theater,
even though most seats are still available directly through our
official box office. In fact, the seat immediately next to one listed
on StubHub in Floor Section C is available from us for $65.68. That's
more than 5 times the price for tickets we still have available. Five
times!
In another case this past year, a fan buying tickets to see The
Devil Makes Three selected what appeared to be a $95 option for two
tickets, only to receive a confirmation charging $165, with no
explanation and no added value. These fans didn't do anything wrong.
They were misled, and by the time they realized it, their money was
gone and we were left to deal with the fallout.
Beyond price gouging, our box office staff deals with speculative
and fake ticketing every day. These include tickets that don't scan,
tickets sold multiple times, tickets for seats or sections that don't
exist, and even tickets for events that were never scheduled at all. At
the Fox Theatre in Boulder, tickets were advertised and sold online for
a Joey Valence & Brae show on a date when no such event existed on our
calendar.\4\ At the Boulder Theater, a fan paid more than $300 for two
tickets to a Big Bad Voodoo Daddy show that cost $27.50 at our box
office. The resale site promised ``guaranteed first eight rows,'' even
though the show was standing room only! The customer ultimately had to
cancel his entire credit card to avoid charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Independent Venue Association, Letter to Yelp CEO
Jeremy Stoppelman (Aug. 28, 2024), https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/5e91157c96fe495a4baf48f2/t/66cf14e95dfd2e5397
6dedfb/1724887295053/NIVA+Letter+to+Yelp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Aggie Theatre in Fort Collins, fans arriving to see
Champagne Drip had resale tickets that simply would not scan, forcing
our staff to step in and prove the tickets were invalid just so the
fans could try to get refunds. And at the Boulder Theater, a fan paid
$173.50 on a secondary site to see Ladysmith Black Mambazo, only to
arrive and learn the tickets didn't exist. She purchased valid tickets
at our box office for $40. These aren't isolated incidents. They are
daily examples of how speculative ticketing harms fans and leaves
independent venues to clean up the damage.
``Seat Saver'' or ``Concierge Services'' Are Actually Ghost Tickets
The most extreme version of this is what resale sites now call
``concierge'' or ``seat saver'' tickets. These are really non-existent
ghost tickets. They're actually not tickets at all. The seller doesn't
have the ticket when they sell it. Fans are led to believe they are
buying a real seat, but they're just paying for a promise that someone
might try to find a ticket later. This isn't an accident. It's how the
secondary market keeps selling fake or speculative tickets under a
nicer name.
Resale platforms market these ghost tickets as if they are a
helpful convenience. In practice, they function as speculative
ticketing: the seller takes a fan's money before possessing a real
ticket, then may locate something later or plan to never deliver it at
all. Scalpers list their ghost ticket at an extreme price (say $1000)
which is exponentially above the original price (say $100). They use
their expensive reseller software to scour the Internet and as long as
they find a ticket below $1000, they've turned a significant profit,
manipulated the market, and price gouged the consumer. The patterns are
consistent and documented across the country:
Fake ticket listings appear before any legitimate ticket
could exist. For example, a show at Britt Pavilion (Bonnie
Raitt, June 3, 2026) was not scheduled to begin member presale
until January 26, 2026. Yet a resale listing was already posted
on November 17, 2025, offering a ``ticket'' for $453. A
consumer cannot resell what no consumer can legally possess.
The only way that listing exists is if the seller is
speculating, planning to source later, or relying on broker
inventory that never went through fair consumer access.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Independent Venue Association, Independent Venues &
Festivals Call for U.S. States to Replicate the UK's New Ticket Resale
Price Cap Policy and to End Speculative Listings (Nov. 19, 2025),
https://www.nivassoc.org/statements/2025/independent-venues-festivals-
call-for-us-states-to-replicate-the-uks-new-ticket-resale-price-cap-
policy-and-to-end-speculative-listings
Speculative sellers manufacture urgency to push fans into
overpaying early. For Aimee Mann at Revolution Hall (March 13,
2026) in Portland, OR, the first presale was scheduled for
November 18, 2025 at 10:00 AM, with public onsale on November
21. Yet a resale listing appeared at 8:54 AM on November 18,
2025 offering ``tickets'' for $143, paired with a scarcity
claim like ``less than 2 percent remaining,'' while the
official ticket price was shown as $63.23. This is not a
functioning market. It is a pressure tactic built on a listing
that should not exist yet.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Same reference as 5.
Speculative sellers set extreme prices on ghost tickets
before a single ticket is sold. An internal primary system
screenshot for a Rachel is Kozi show at The Howlin' Wolf
(October 3, 2025) in New Orleans, LA showed a $10 face value
price and zero tickets sold, meaning no inventory was
circulating. Despite that, a resale listing was posted on
StubHub offering a speculative ticket for $964 while claiming
``Only 1 percent of tickets left.'' That is the core of the
``concierge'' and ``seat saver'' model: charge first, source
later, and use fear to justify the markup.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Same reference as 5.
Seats and rows are advertised that do not exist, even for
the biggest tours in the world. We have seen ``Seat Saver''
resale listings sell ``seats'' that do not exist in the venue,
such as seats 9001 to 9004 for a show at The Fitzgerald Theater
in St. Paul, MN even though the venue has 1,058 seats and no
seat numbers anywhere near the 9000s. We have also seen the
same practice scaled up for stadium events, including multiple
Beyonce shows where resale listings advertised floor tickets in
rows that the primary ticketing seat map does not show at all,
such as NRG Stadium in Houston listing Floor Q, Row 22 when the
primary map's last listed row is Row 12, Mercedes Benz Stadium
in Atlanta listing Floor M, Row 20 when the primary map's last
listed row is Row 15, MetLife Stadium listing Floor 12, Row 24
when the primary map's last listed row is Row 12, and Allegiant
Stadium in Las Vegas listing Field A3, Row 25 when the primary
map's last listed row is Row 8. These are not minor
discrepancies. They are concrete proof that platforms are
hosting listings that are not tied to real tickets that could
ever exist.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Same reference as 5.
When these ghost tickets fall apart, fans come to our box offices
desperate for help after they've already spent money on travel, hotel
rooms, outfits, childcare, and time off work. And there's nothing we
can do for them. The resale platforms face little to no consequence for
listing something that was never real in the first place. You couldn't
sell a car, a hotel room, or a plane ticket you don't own and call it a
service. Live entertainment shouldn't be any different. Unfortunately,
the Federal TICKET Act currently explicitly says some of these
practices should be legal--and that needs to change.
Negative Impact of The Mounting Resale Deceptive Practices
When something goes wrong with these fake and overcharged tickets,
fans don't blame the scalper who sold it to them from a basement
halfway across the country. They blame the venues. They come to our box
offices angry and confused when their ticket doesn't scan or when they
realize they wildly overpaid. Our staff is the only face they see, so
we take the hit. We get the bad reviews, and it is our reputation that
is damaged.
At Z2, we've been forced to print out and keep a sheet at our box
office with customer service contact information for all the major
resale sites, not because it helps us but because fans are desperate,
and this is quite literally the only thing we can do to help. Anyone
who's tried to get help from these sites knows how that goes. 99
percent of the time, phones don't get answered. E-mails go nowhere.
Fans leave frustrated and that frustration lands squarely on us.
The damage doesn't stop there. On the night of a show, we staff as
if it's sold out: full production, bar, security, and box office. But
when resellers can't unload their inventory, a show that looked sold
out on paper is suddenly only 60 to 70 percent full but we don't know
that until doors open. That means we lose 30 to 40 percent of our
expected food and bar revenue, while labor costs stay the same. And to
add a pile of salt on the wound, venues find out weeks later that the
scalpers claim fraud for what was unsold and are refunded thousands of
dollars by the credit card companies These `chargebacks' also come with
a fee, which is paid by the venues. That shortfall comes after the
show, after the band is paid, after staff is paid, after the lights are
turned off. And there's no way to make that money back. This amounts to
stealing, but we have no recourse.
Z2 produces around 700 shows a year. That adds up to a massive
amount of lost revenue, but more importantly, it represents hundreds if
not thousands of fans who were deceived and left with a worse
experience. Fewer fans come back. Bar sales drop. Merchandise sales
drop. Money that should stay with the artist and local businesses
leaves the community and the state. And increasingly, fans give up
entirely or look elsewhere, even traveling out of the country for shows
because 1) it's cheaper and 2) they no longer trust the system here.
The fans, the venues, the artists, and local economies all lose.
Independent venue owners did not choose to become policy advocates.
We chose to run small businesses, employ local workers, and bring live
music to our communities. The scale and aggressiveness of today's
scalping platforms has left us with no choice. The harm to our fans and
our businesses has become so severe that we have been forced to dig
into what's happening behind the scenes and engage in policy fights
simply to protect the people who walk through our doors.
That reality hit home in Colorado. As deceptive resale practices
escalated, well-funded resale interests poured resources into shaping
state legislation that directly affected our businesses, often without
independent venues meaningfully included at the table. We watched
policies, including the scalper-backed Colorado House Bill 24-1378,
being pushed that favor resale profits over fan protection, even as
local venues were left dealing with the fallout night after night. That
experience made one thing clear: this is not just a local problem, and
it is not accidental.
When we followed the money, the same players kept appearing. What
looks like a scattered, chaotic resale market on the surface is,
underneath, a highly coordinated and professionalized national
industry. To understand why independent venues across the country like
mine are facing the same problems every day, and why government
intervention is necessary, it's important to understand who is shaping
the debate, how much money is at stake, and why these companies are
fighting so hard to preserve the status quo.
The Multibillion Dollar Industries That Are Harming Our Consumers and
Our Business
The highly professionalized resale industry extracts enormous
profits while refusing to operate transparently. The Ticket Policy
Forum, led by former National Association of Ticket Brokers' lobbyist
Brian Berry, is a clear example. It is a coalition of the largest
resale platforms in the country, including StubHub, SeatGeek, TickPick,
GameTime, Vivid Seats, and Event Tickets Center. These companies are
not advocating for fans or venues. Their platforms host scalpers and
they are advocating for their own revenue streams and stock prices--and
the scale of their profits matters. In 2024, StubHub reported
approximately $1.77 billion in revenue, and Vivid Seats reported
roughly $780 million.\9\ \10\ That is more than $2.5 billion from just
two of the six companies represented by the Ticket Policy Forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ StubHub's 2024 revenue was approximately $1.77 billion, per the
company's IPO filing disclosures and reporting on that filing, https://
www.reuters.com/markets/deals/ticketing-marketplace-stubhub-files-us-
ipo-2025-03-21/
\10\ Vivid Seats reported full-year 2024 revenues of approximately
$775.6 million, per the company's reported financial results,https://
investors.vividseats.com/news-releases/news-release-details/vivid-
seats-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2024-results-0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When this coalition opposes reform, it is not protecting
constituents. It is protecting their profit margins. SeatGeek, Event
Tickets Center, and GameTime routinely receive some of the lowest
consumer ratings in the industry, averaging around one out of five
stars with the Better Business Bureau. If an independent venue treated
patrons that poorly, it would shut down.
These platforms like to argue that they sometimes sell tickets
below face value. That is fine. We have no quarrel with that and no
issue with genuine fan-to-fan resale. We understand sometimes fans
can't make it to shows. But that is not what defines this market.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``professional
resellers, or brokers, have a competitive advantage over consumers in
buying tickets as soon as they are released. Brokers can use numerous
staff and software (`bots') to rapidly buy many tickets. As a result,
many consumers can buy tickets only on the resale market at a
substantial markup.'' \11\ This is not a consumer-driven ecosystem. It
is a professionalized extraction machine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Event Ticket Sales:
Market Characteristics and Consumer Protection Issues, GAO-18-347 (Apr.
12, 2018), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes this even more troubling and frustrating is how these
companies fund and hide behind organizations that masquerade as
consumer advocates. Across the country, and in Colorado, scalping
platforms finance groups that lobby against consumer protection reform
while claiming to speak for fans.\12\ Organizations like the National
Consumers League, Sports Fans Coalition, Protect Ticket Rights, Fan
Freedom Project, Coalition for Ticket Fairness, Chamber of Progress,
and NetChoice have all received funding or direct support from ticket
resale companies, including StubHub, Vivid Seats, Event Tickets Center,
and the National Association of Ticket Brokers. These groups lobby
against bans on speculative tickets, resale price caps, and limits on
predatory resale practices while marketing themselves as defenders of
consumers, which could not be further from reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Marc Hogan, A Guide to ``Fan'' Organizations Funded by the
Ticketing Industry, Pitchfork (Aug. 3, 2023), https://pitchfork.com/
thepitch/consumer-groups-take-money-from-ticketing-industry/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and time again, resale companies will not disclose who on
their platforms are professional resellers. They will not identify
broker networks. They don't even disclose the username, or business
name of who is reselling these tickets. And they will not cooperate in
ways that allow regulators to enforce the law.
Instead, they fund front groups to muddy the waters and slow
reform. Their business model does not improve with transparency. It
collapses under it. That is why it festers in darkness, purposefully.
Industrial Resellers With No Skin In the Live Entertainment Game Should
Not Be Treated The Same As the Artists and Small Businesses
That Assume The Risk
This is a professional resale industry getting richer through fees,
while independent venues are just trying to keep the doors open. The
secondary market is fundamentally different from what we do. These are
large, well-capitalized companies that don't actually put on the show
and don't carry the costs or risks of live events. Companies like
StubHub have publicly disclosed that they have no show costs at all,
yet they collect significant fees on every resale transaction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ StubHub Holdings, Inc., Form S-1/A (SEC), describing a
business model that does not assume ticket inventory risk, https://
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1337634/0001193125
25197614/d225849ds1a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, the fees charged by independent venues exist to cover
the real and unavoidable costs of producing live events: paying artists
through guarantees or box office splits; employing production crews,
sound and lighting engineers, and front-of-house staff; staffing
security, box office, bar, and cleaning teams; covering payroll taxes
and workers' compensation; maintaining and insuring the building;
paying utilities and basic operating expenses; running ticketing
systems and payment processing; meeting safety, accessibility, and
compliance requirements; promoting shows so fans know they exist; and
paying mandatory performing rights organization fees to ASCAP, BMI, and
SESAC so songwriters are compensated when their music is performed
live.
Secondary ticket platforms and scalpers don't pay any of these
costs. They don't carry the legal, financial, or operational
responsibility of hosting live events, yet they collect ticket service
and other fees on top of ours. That is why comparing primary ticket
fees to secondary resale fees is misleading, and why the responsibility
and risk remain squarely with local venues even as resale platforms
extract billions from the system.
The Disastrous Market Control of Live Nation
Live Nation doesn't just sell tickets. It controls the choke points
that determine who gets access to tickets at all. And when one company
controls ticketing, artist management, promotion, venue ownership, and
resale, it has the ability to shape the market in ways that no
independent venue, artist, or fan can counter on their own. From where
I sit as a venue operator, Live Nation is not adjacent to these
problems. It is part of the structure that allows them to persist.
Live Nation employs a suite of anti-competitive tactics that
severely limit access to the live music market for independent
operators. It manages hundreds of major artists, giving its promotions
division the right of first refusal on those artists' live shows. It
leverages all-or-nothing touring deals that route artists exclusively
through Live Nation venues and ticketing systems, while using a stick
or a carrot to ensure artists know there are financial penalties if
they choose to work with independent promoters. It enforces radius
clauses that are waived for other Live Nation venues but not for
independent ones. Local artists have been barred from performing at
non-Live Nation festivals because they agreed to play a Live Nation-
branded event. Even when Live Nation controls a venue, it has refused
to rent the space to artists or promoters it does not control, leaving
rooms dark rather than enabling competition. Independent venues report
being told they will lose performers whose tours are managed by Live
Nation if they don't switch to Ticketmaster, a clear violation of their
consent decree. And in some cases, Live Nation has demanded to be added
as a ``co-promoter'' on shows it had no involvement in booking,
claiming up to half of the profits under threat that refusal will
jeopardize future bookings. This is not competition, and the U.S.
Department of Justice lawsuit to break up this monopoly makes this
clear.
Those tactics do not operate in isolation. They are reinforced by
Live Nation and Ticketmaster's vertical integration, a flywheel that
links artist management, promotion, venue access, primary ticketing,
and monetization through fees and affiliated resale channels. When one
company can influence routing decisions, venue availability, and the
ticketing system fans must use, it can raise rivals' costs and reduce
competitive alternatives without ever having to compete on service or
price. That is why independent promoters and venues experience these
tactics as a package: pressure on tours, pressure on rooms, pressure on
ticketing, and limited recourse.
The competitive harms are not only theoretical. They translate
directly into the ticketing outcomes that fans experience, including
diminished access to face value inventory and an ecosystem that is more
vulnerable to manipulation by professional resellers. In its lawsuit,
the FTC alleges that Ticketmaster and Live Nation knowingly allowed,
and even encouraged, brokers to use multiple Ticketmaster accounts to
circumvent Ticketmaster's own security measures and access control
systems, and that those resellers then listed tickets directly on Live
Nation's resale marketplace. The FTC also alleges that a senior
Ticketmaster executive admitted in an internal e-mail, copied to Live
Nation leadership, that the companies ``turn a blind eye as a matter of
policy'' to brokers' violations of posted ticket limits, including an
internal review finding that five brokers controlled 6,345 Ticketmaster
accounts and possessed 246,407 concert tickets to 2,594 events.\14\
This is all why Live Nation must be broken up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FTC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC,
Complaint (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/system/
files/ftc_gov/pdf/FTCvLiveNation-Ticketmaster-Complaint-filed.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Reform Looks Like
At this point, we know the harm is real. We see it every night at
our box offices. We know the scale of the abuse, and we know it is
being driven by highly professionalized, multibillion-dollar
operations. The question before Congress is not whether fans are being
harmed. It is whether Federal policy will finally catch up to the
realities of how tickets are bought, sold, and manipulated in the
digital age. From where I sit as a venue operator, meaningful reform
must protect fans at every step of the experience, from the moment they
search for a show online to the moment they walk through our doors.
Ban Predatory Resale Before the Public Onsale
One of the most damaging practices we see is the resale of tickets
before the public ever has a fair chance to buy them, and it must be
banned. Professional scalpers routinely invade artist presales, fan
clubs, and early-access programs meant for real fans. They buy up
inventory in bulk and immediately list those tickets on secondary
platforms at inflated prices before the public onsale even begins.
From a fan's perspective, it looks like the show sold out
instantly. In reality, access was intercepted by design. This practice
creates artificial scarcity, allows resellers to set prices before the
real market ever opens, and guarantees tickets will be funneled into
the secondary market. It is pure manipulation. Ending resale before the
public onsale is essential to restoring fair access and price
integrity.
Ban Deceptive URLs, Spoof Websites, and Predatory Search Engine
Optimization
Reform must also address what happens when fans search for tickets
online. Right now, deceptive resale websites routinely impersonate
official box offices. At Z2, fans regularly show up believing they
purchased tickets directly from us, only to discover they were misled
by a site designed to look official. In most cases, our venues don't
even appear on the first page of search results for our own shows.
Large resale platforms like StubHub spend hundreds of millions of
dollars each year on advertising and marketing, a level of spending
independent venues cannot match. The result is resale sites appearing
ahead of official venue websites, forcing consumers to scroll past
resale listings to find the original seller.
No other consumer market allows businesses to impersonate official
sellers and profit from confusion. Live entertainment should not be an
exception. Congress should ban deceptive URLs and spoof websites
outright. And, they should investigate how predatory search engine
optimization harms fans.
Ban Speculative Tickets With Zero Loopholes
Speculative ticket listings must be banned outright, with no
loopholes. It is unacceptable for resale platforms to allow brokers to
sell tickets they do not own, do not possess, or may never deliver.
This includes so-called ``concierge'' or ``seat saver'' services, which
are simply ghost tickets under a different name.
These listings mislead fans, create artificial scarcity, and
regularly result in serious financial and emotional harm. In some
cases, fans only learn their tickets are invalid after traveling long
distances, booking nonrefundable hotels, taking time off work, and
arranging childcare. No legitimate consumer market allows companies to
sell products they don't have and cancel at the last minute without
consequence. Any serious reform must prohibit speculative tickets
entirely.
Institute Resale Price Caps to Restore Affordability
From where I sit as a venue operator, resale price caps are about
affordability and restoring balance to a market that has gone largely
unchecked for decades. Ticketing moved online faster than policy ever
caught up. In that gap, a resale industry emerged that now inflates
prices instantly, at scale, with almost no limits.
This is not about setting ticket prices or interfering with artists
and venues in the primary market. It is about stopping extreme markups
that have nothing to do with demand and everything to do with
speculation. Without guardrails, tickets meant to cost $40 or $60 are
flipped for hundreds of dollars before fans ever get a fair chance to
buy them. That is not access. That is exclusion.
States are already responding to this reality. Washington, D.C.,
Delaware, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Washington State, Wisconsin, and Vermont
have all introduced resale price cap legislation recently, and Maine
passed one last year, because they are seeing the same harm in their
communities. Federal policy is falling behind.
Close BOTS Act Enforcement Gaps and Pass the MAIN Event Ticketing Act
Many of these abuses are fueled by automated bots that buy up
tickets at scale the moment they go on sale. Congress recognized this
problem when it passed the BOTS Act in 2016. But in nearly a decade,
that law has been enforced only once.
That lack of enforcement has sent a clear message to bad actors.
The risk is low and the rewards are high in duping fans. Independent
venues like mine want to see the MAIN Event Ticketing Act passed
because without real enforcement authority, the same abuses will
continue no matter how many rules exist on paper.
Stop Letting Scalper-Funded Front Groups Speak for Fans
Finally, Congress and Federal agencies need to be clear-eyed about
who is shaping this debate. Across the country, resale platforms fund
organizations that claim to represent consumers while lobbying against
reforms that would actually protect fans. These are not independent
voices. When questioned closely, their representatives have
acknowledged selective data, partial studies, and direct financial ties
to the resale industry. That alone should give policymakers pause.
Congress should be listening to constituents, artists, and local
businesses who live with the consequences of these practices, not
corporate-funded groups whose job is to obfuscate and defend resale
profits.
Conclusion
This is a defining moment. The live entertainment industry is not
broken by accident. It has been bent, over time, by unchecked
consolidation, deceptive business models, and deliberate inaction.
Every fake ticket, every hidden fee, every mandated transfer or
inflated resale is not just a flaw in the system. It reflects a system
built to serve profit, not the people. But artists should be able to
control how their tickets are sold. Fans should be able to trust the
platforms they use. And independent venues should not have to fight for
survival while others make billions off of their risk. We are not
asking for favors. We are demanding guardrails and consumer protection.
Congress is charged with protecting consumers and ensuring competition
must meet this moment and the threats facing our Nation in ticketing
deserve more than words. In an era defined by division, live music and
performance continues to create connection and common ground. And that
is worth protecting.
While there are organizations truly advocating for fan and small
business voices, like the Fix the Tix Coalition or the Fan Alliance, we
cannot do it alone. We need Congress to act now. Consumers are
helpless. In the absence of Congressional action, we have gone state-
by-state to pass strong consumer protections in ticketing, and we will
continue to do so. At the same time, a national solution is what fans,
artists, and independent venues need, and we stand ready to craft it
with you.
Thank you for your time.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, all.
We are going to begin our five-minute round of questioning
and work through the Members as they come to the dais.
Mr. Wall, I want to come to you. I want to thank you and
your team for collaborating with us as we planned our hearing
today, and your appearance is--it is certainly appreciated.
I will say I was quite disappointed when I read the FTC
complaint against Live Nation/Ticketmaster as well as your
response.
I could not help but remember our hearing from the
Judiciary Committee that I referenced earlier and it was after
Taylor Swift's--your platform had such a meltdown, and your
President--Ticketmaster's President--told members of the
Committee unequivocally that your company does everything in
its power to stop the circumvention of your ticket purchasing
limits and security measures.
So given the allegations in the FTC's complaint, how can
you possibly stand by that sentiment saying you do everything
you possibly can?
Mr. Wall. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Of course, it is in litigation and it is not going to
surprise anyone that we contest a lot of the most basic
allegations in that case.
But let me just say that the reason that I feel that I can
say that quite confidently is because, you know, when we left
that hearing we got the message.
We understood that we had to up our game, and we have made
increase after increase in the resources that we throw into the
battle against not just the bots but all of the different
techniques that we----
Senator Blackburn. Does Live Nation/Ticketmaster employ a
Chief Technology Officer?
Mr. Wall. Yes, and in fact we have a brand new CEO who is a
technologist.
Senator Blackburn. What is your expectation of that CTO?
Mr. Wall. Our expectation on this particular issue is to
make every effort possible to get the tickets that an artist
like Mr. Ritchie wants to sell to his fans in there----
Senator Blackburn. Have you consulted with other companies
in similar nature to yours or other companies, like I said,
financial institutions that fight bots every single day?
Mr. Wall. Of course.
Senator Blackburn. Have you all consulted with them to see
what they are doing?
Mr. Wall. Of course, and the new----
Senator Blackburn. So you have consulted with them. Have
you picked up any of their best practices?
Mr. Wall. Absolutely.
Senator Blackburn. And so why are you not able to block the
bots?
Mr. Wall. We are blocking over 500 million.
Senator Blackburn. But you are not getting all the bots. If
the local power company had your approach to this, every day
they would have a bot scoop in and get user data.
They would get information. They might even corrupt the
system because they get these cyber attacks daily. It is
inexcusable--inexcusable--that you all cannot find a way to
keep transparency and fairness in this marketplace.
Mr. Berry, do other of your members have problems such as
Ticketmaster has?
Mr. Berry. So our members have similar teams of employees
who take care of those problems as well, and we have a company
that is well known and is trying very difficult to break into
the primary and has done a little bit of that and does not
experience those problems and does ticket football stadiums as
well.
Senator Blackburn. Mm-hmm. So you had mentioned if a broker
could not be a part of a resale system, it would be a black
market. So what is the process somebody goes through to become
a broker?
Is it just an e-mail address? Is it a physical address?
What is the process you require of people?
Mr. Berry. So to become a broker--we are online
marketplaces. So in order to sell tickets on an online
marketplace, I do not know if there is a process to become a
broker.
Senator Blackburn. I am fully aware you are an online
marketplace. In other words, do you know the people that are
there? Do you have the information? Do you do enough research
to know that this is actually an ongoing concern and not a
scalper?
Mr. Berry. So every seller that is on the marketplace has
to set up an account and be verified and provide their
information and their address, et cetera. If there is ever a
problem as a marketplace, like any marketplace--in our case
tickets--we only do one thing and that is tickets.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Weingarden, you are kind of rolling
your eyes on that. You got a response to that?
Mr. Weingarden. I do not think that that is even possible
for the amount of----
Senator Blackburn. So you do not believe what they are
saying?
Mr. Weingarden. I do not.
Senator Blackburn. OK. That is great.
Mr. Ritchie, I want to come to you. I know you have got the
reputation not only in Nashville but around the country you do
a barn burner of a show and you are known----
Mr. Ritchie. Thought you were going to say something else.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blackburn. Not quite. But you take care of your
fans. You are known for taking care of your fans.
So how has this price gouging in the marketplace affected
your fan base? What do they tell you?
Mr. Ritchie. They are pissed. It prices them out of the
market, many of them, especially, you know, working class
folks.
And like I have explained before, you know, people do not
realize why this is so different than another business where--
or maybe if a grocery store is gouging on the price of
something, you might be able to go to another store close by if
you have those means to get that little better price.
When you are talking about your favorite artist--you know,
I am looking back when I was a child and some of my favorite
artists, you know, I would have done anything to get into those
shows.
And so some of these people, you know, they are maxing out
their credit cards and they are in debt. They are missing a
house payment, things like this. So the way it affects them is
terrible.
You see it all the time. Go onto any artist's message board
who is popular and tickets come, and it is a conundrum to get
them. Just look at those messages--oh, I wish I could go. I
wish I could afford it. I am priced out. Like, blah blah blah.
You know, it just--it is really just common sense----
Senator Blackburn. Frustrating.
Mr. Ritchie.--which is we keep--we keep talking about it. I
have heard from Mr. Hickenlooper and down here, they are trying
to run this disguise again of, like, speculative ticketing and
all-in pricing.
These things are great. We do all agree on it. It does not
solve the problem because what they hide in these things, which
I believe they have done in Colorado and that they are doing in
California or they have done, is they do all these wonderful
things and goes, oh, they are doing all this stuff for
ticketing.
What they do not do or what they do is they sneak in or
they say we must keep tickets on the free market, and all that
does is give the scalpers, the bad actors, the bots, a license
to ill. That is it.
So they keep running this game. Do not be fooled. Like, the
only way I have seen it that we can fix this is--and Live
Nation, us and Ticketmaster agree on this, you know, oddly
enough, that there needs to be a price cap.
They have tried this in Europe. Just look at it. It works
there. Do I want to be a follower of Europe? Not really.
Senator Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Ritchie. But you know what I mean? They did something
that is kind of working. We ought to--we ought to take a hard
look at that.
Senator Blackburn. My time has expired.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Blackburn.
I actually chaired the hearing in Judiciary that Senator
Blackburn took part in, and I--Mr. Ritchie, thank you for being
here.
I remember that well because we had trouble getting artists
that wanted to come forward. We found a guy, Clyde Lawrence of
the band Lawrence, and what I remember most is that he ended up
being a great witness but he kept turning to the person behind
him and everyone on TV thought it was his lawyer. It was his
saxophone player, and that hearing----
Mr. Ritchie. I have the same lawyer present.
Senator Klobuchar. There you go.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ritchie. None.
Senator Klobuchar. But it made a difference because we
gathered evidence that we gave to the--we gave to the Justice
Department and with Senator Lee, and what we found out at that
hearing was that Live Nation and Ticketmaster's size is
unbelievable.
No company should have 80 percent of ticket sales at major
concert venues, own 40 percent of the top 50 amphitheaters in
the U.S., and control 60 percent of promotion revenue.
We also discussed many of the issues that you talked about
today about the bots and about what is happening in the resale
market, and I have been frustrated. While some things have
improved and we have appreciated the companies worked with us
on some of these, but it just continues to be a problem.
Mr. Berry, I would start with you. Why does breaking up
Live Nation and Ticketmaster help?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I believe this case that faces the entire nation right now
will answer the question of whether or not a monopoly can be
held accountable and do better, or run roughshod over our
government and the market, simply put.
In terms of specifics, you know, there is then this
conversation around exclusive contracts and venues. We agree a
venue should be able to decide. A venue should be able to
decide, but not extorted into making a decision because that
affects the downstream effects.
In the world of ticketing, one of the greatest examples--
and it is in the amended complaint, Senator--had to do with the
Ticketmaster SafeTix technology. It was announced as anti-fraud
and counterfeit technology.
The way it is being used is to foreclose competitors and
abuse fans. It abuses a fan after the fact when months down the
line--because they do not deliver tickets when you buy them,
you pay for it and you get them 6 months later where they
disappear or they get canceled. Worse yet, you leave fans with
legitimate tickets----
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Mr. Berry.--outside of venues not able to get in because
their tickets have been taken back by Ticketmaster.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Weingarden, as an independent owner, could you talk
about for a concert venue how this issue, these anti-
competitive practices, affect independent venues?
Mr. Weingarden. Well, when you have got one company that
controls that much, and it is not just the amount of money that
they have, they have got a significant amount of leverage
managing artists.
They have got all-or-nothing ticketing deals, touring
deals, that will not allow for any other plays unless they are
in these venues, and these are multi-multimillion-dollar deals.
If you are radius--if you are radiusing out any other sort of,
like, play within a market or close by----
Senator Klobuchar. The radius clauses that you are talking
about?
Mr. Weingarden. Radius clauses, that is correct. Those
make--and if I am, like, sort of a known promoter that has
brought an artist up for a while and I want to be--you know,
and I want to continue to work with that act, you know, and put
them in maybe a larger space, they are not going to--they would
not be renting to me.
Senator Klobuchar. Right.
Mr. Weingarden. I mean, the list goes on, and they are a
behemoth for sure and it makes things very difficult for
independent promoters.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. Thanks also for focusing on some
of the deceptive practices. That bill that Senator Cornyn and I
did, the Fans First Act, some of those provisions are in this--
in the TICKET Act.
Mr. Weingarden. Yes, thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Wall, as we look at advancing some
of this legislation but also as we look at what is happening
with that case--and I believe you have got to let the Justice
Department do their job, I know that Live Nation has hired a
number of lobbyists--that always happens, but Trump-aligned
lobbyists to apply pressure to overrule the antitrust division
and settle the case.
The former deputy assistant AG for antitrust, Robert
Alford, someone I have called as a witness in Judiciary several
times, appointed and subsequently fired by this administration,
warned about these lobbyists' influence over the case.
Would you agree that the Justice Department's antitrust
lawsuit should be resolved based on the law----
Mr. Weingarden. A hundred percent.
Senator Klobuchar.--and the facts and not political
pressure?
Mr. Weingarden. One hundred percent, and I--and I expect
that to be resolved in our favor.
One thing I wanted to tell you, Senator Klobuchar, because
you brought it up is that in that lawsuit, in the ticketing
market that is not gerrymandered but simply takes the full
range of opportunities in large concert venues, our share is
actually under 50 percent. So that is the government
economists' number, not ours.
So I think that you should take some comfort in that.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Mr. Ritchie, I have a feeling you do
not take comfort in that but----
Mr. Ritchie. Well, I was just going to add, I know no one
likes a tattle, but from what my sources tell me--you might
want to ask Mr. Wall--is that my friend President Trump, Live
Nation has also hired a couple of his friends, Ric Grenell and
Kellyanne Conway. That says a lot right there.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
Senator Blackburn. OK, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. On that note, so but would you
just--could I just ask one last question on the subject here of
just what you think the effect is on smaller bands, not ones
that fill the whole----
Mr. Ritchie. On smaller bands?
Senator Klobuchar.--whole arenas like you, of a monopoly?
Mr. Ritchie. Smaller bands? I mean, if you get popular as a
smaller band, it is almost the same problem. You are just
selling out a smaller venue. No tickets, and they get jacked up
in prices, and all the same things still happen.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ritchie. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
thank you for having this hearing.
The reason why I introduced the bill is I agree, I think
that for me and I think a lot of Americans these live events,
whether it is a concert or a sporting event, it brings people
together.
You do have those memories. I remember the first concert
was Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers at what used to be called
Riverport in the St. Louis area, and just loved going to
concerts, and you just hate seeing people get priced out.
You know, I am a big Cardinals fan. You see people getting
priced out of those playoff tickets. I mean, look at the
college football playoff, the national championship game.
I mean, these Indiana fans, like, the worst program in the
history of college football I cannot get in the arena. And I
understand there is limited capacity, but I just think that
there is--the more transparency that we have, I think, is
really important.
I think, Mr. Ritchie, what I hear you saying is we should
do that. This is broad bipartisan so we should do that, but
there is more to do, right?
There is more to do than just the transparency, because you
are just seeing regular people that are just getting boxed out,
right?
Mr. Ritchie. Yes. Those are things we can all agree on--the
speculative ticking----
Senator Schmitt. Yes.
Mr. Ritchie.--transparency, all that stuff, but it does not
solve the problem of getting the tickets into the hands of the
fans at the prices the artists set.
Like I said, I am a capitalist. I am a deregulation guy.
But something needs to be done here. This has gone on for 30
years. It has only gotten worse.
Senator Schmitt. Right. Right. And I appreciate you coming
here today because I think you lending your voice to this is
important.
I wanted to ask Mr. Wall, in a lot of these sporting events
the dynamic pricing and inventory holdbacks are now kind of
routine, with only a fraction of the seats, I would say, often
actually released to the general public.
Given this kind of structure that exists, what is
Ticketmaster's policy on disclosing to fans how many seats are
truly available for the event at the moment of sale, and do you
support greater transparency standards on that point?
Mr. Wall. Thank you, Senator.
We definitely support greater transparency. I do have to
say that there is a wrinkle in this in that certain kinds of
information are primarily useful to ticket brokers that are
trying to size the market for what they can--how much they can
charge and we draw some lines there.
I want to take this opportunity to say that we do not ever
hold back. Ticketmaster would not have the authority to do this
anyway but we do not hold back tickets from the primary
ticketing market.
We do not secretly send them over to brokers or anything
like that, and that is one of the fundamental ramifications of
the fact that a concert promoter with a CEO like Michael Rapino
owns Ticketmaster.
That puts us on this side of the aisle instead of this side
of the aisle because we are going to make the decisions that
are good for Mr. Ritchie and other artists.
Senator Schmitt. How does--and I will stay with you just
for just a sec--Ticketmaster recently announced several policy
changes, including limiting entities to a single verified
account--you mentioned that--and removing broker management
tools.
How would this legislation, the TICKET Act's requirement
for full transparency complement that or help that as far as
the internal changes that you are already making in that
regard? Or does it?
Mr. Wall. I do not--I do not see a particular connection to
it, but we are going to vote yes on transparency pretty
generally just because we agree that that is an important part
of the market.
And a lot of these issues, particularly in the resale
markets, there is so much opaqueness, there is so much
misdirection, that as a society we have got to do something
about that.
Senator Schmitt. OK, thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Berry, music venues and promoters traditionally
guarantee that every ticket sold by their box office admits
them to the shows. How do your ticket resale platform members
verify that a ticket is real prior to it being listed on their
resale platforms?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
We advocate, as your office knows, for interoperability and
greater connections between the primary and secondary.
A great example, sir, would be Paciolan. That is a company
that Ticketmaster was required to divest during the merger,
large in the collegiate area. When there is a ticket purchased
or resold, there is a connection on the back end so that there
is verification, and when it goes for sale there is a guarantee
it goes through. This is not just trusted but it is verified.
We would advocate for that across the entire ecosystem.
When 80 percent or more of popular concert tickets are
controlled by one company that will not share that information,
there has to be a lot of trust and there has to be a lot of
customer support. The greatest thing we can do as marketplaces
then is hold the sellers accountable.
Senator Lujan. So, Mr. Berry, do all your members guarantee
that the ticket is good?
Mr. Berry. All guarantee refund protection or comparable--
--
Senator Lujan. No, that is not what I am asking.
Mr. Berry. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lujan. Do all your members guarantee when you buy
the ticket you are going to get in?
I mean, the answer is no. We can just say it. The answer is
no. I can move on to this----
Mr. Berry. We guarantee is that your ticket will work or
you can get comparable----
Senator Lujan. OK, let me move on to the next question. I
will help--I will help you with this, sir.
You are not going to say it. I will say it. The answer is
no, and we know it is a problem. We need to fix it. So if you
are saying that you want everyone to guarantee it then make
them.
Do not allow them to be a member unless they guarantee it
and then we will not need to pass legislation. So I hope we can
work on that one together.
Mr. Berry, which of your companies allow speculative
ticketing and which ones ban it?
Mr. Berry. So multiple companies do not allow it on their
platforms and, you know, the challenge with speculative
ticketing, sir, is that there are a lot of tickets that you may
presume are speculative----
Senator Lujan. Yes.
Mr. Berry.--that have already been provided through
different allotments that no one knows about because it is
completely opaque and secret. There can be, you know, multiple
pre-sales.
There can be deceptive, secret holdbacks of tickets, and I
understand today that was challenged. But through subpoena
authority, the New York State attorney general obtained this
information. So when we see some of these tickets, they are not
speculative.
Senator Lujan. Let me ask you the question----
Mr. Berry. As for speculative, sir, we would support a ban
on deceptive speculative tickets as the TICKET Act has
prescribed.
Senator Lujan. Would you support a ban on speculative
ticketing?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir, and that is why I call for this
committee to pass the TICKET Act.
Senator Lujan. So will you do me a favor? And Mr. Ritchie,
I appreciate your response earlier to all my colleagues on the
Committee. I had the amendment. I had the amendment to get rid
of speculative ticketing, and then I was told by some of the
offices take it down because it is going to take the whole act
down.
And I talked to the main author, Ms. Blackburn. We said,
well, OK, we need this. We need the act, but if there is--
everyone here agree we should get rid of speculative ticketing?
Mr. Ritchie, yes or no?
Mr. Ritchie. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall. In stronger terms than he wants.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Berry, I heard you say yes. You want to
repeat that?
Mr. Berry. Yes, Senator. Pass the TICKET Act.
Mr. Weingarden. Absolutely. Get rid of speculative
ticketing.
Senator Lujan. Let me ask you a question just real quick,
Mr. Berry.
You support getting rid of speculative ticketing, yes or
no?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir. It is a big change in the industry. We
think it is the right thing to do for the fans.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that.
Mr. Weingarden?
Mr. Weingarden. Absolutely, 100 percent.
Senator Lujan. OK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad you are
here, sir, and we hear this and all the staff in here hears it,
and maybe we can just offer this up next time we have any bill
that comes in.
Since we are in the Senate there is nothing that restricts
us on offering whatever we want to do. It is in the Committee's
jurisdiction. So I look forward to doing that with everybody
here as well.
Mr. Wall, let me jump to you here real quick, sir.
September 2025 the FTC brought suit against Ticketmaster
alleging that the company knowingly allowed brokers to use
multiple accounts to evade ticket limits.
Now, I am aware that you dispute these allegations and
there is ongoing litigation, but my question is how many bot-
related circumvention referrals has Live Nation made to the FTC
since the BOTS Act passed in 2016?
Mr. Wall. I am not sure of the exact number, but there came
a point when they told us to stop doing that because they
understood that the bots problem was an ongoing problem.
Senator Lujan. So have you disciplined, Mr. Wall, any
brokers or your company disciplined any brokers or banned them
from buying or listing tickets on Ticketmaster based on their
circumvention of your technological controls?
Mr. Wall. Yes.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
Madam Chair, I am going to turn this back over to you. I
know everyone here knows that I have been proud to work with
Senator Blackburn on this issue as well. I now am proud that I
heard from everyone in the industry that we can get rid of
speculative ticketing.
I look forward to working with the Chair and the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee to bring that up and all I--all
the staff that are in here I hope you just author it.
If the Chair wants to put his name on it, I would be happy
to turn it over. Well, let us get that done. Let us get rid of
it. Thank you for the time.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Senator Lujan.
Senator Cruz.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to all the
witnesses.
Mr. Ritchie, let me say as a Texan I am particularly happy
to see you bringing cowboy hats back to the U.S. Senate. It
warms my heart.
Mr. Ritchie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Let me start with you, Mr. Ritchie. In your
testimony, you talk a lot about how music fans and artists have
been harmed by systemic problems within the ticketing system.
You have been doing this for over 25 years with a ton of
success. What do you see as the biggest problem for music fans?
Mr. Ritchie. Well, just like we are saying, we keep going
back to these speculative ticketing. You know, transparency,
all this stuff, great. Everyone does agree on these small
things, but it does not solve this problem.
The biggest problem I see as an artist is getting the
tickets at the prices I set into the hands of the fans. And
like I said, I will say it again, I am a capitalist. I am a
deregulation guy.
There is no way around this but to put a price cap on this,
or technology figure it out. But technology has not yet. Maybe
they do not want them to.
I mean, when people are making a lot of money in the
secondary market--and I even told the CEO of Live Nation a
couple years ago, I go, you know, you guys would have probably
gotten away with this a lot longer if you just would have paid
the artists some of the money in the secondary market, which
they never did. We never shared in that.
But either way, I am here for the fans. That is it. I would
actually take a pay cutoff this. I would rather have more fans
and take a little less money or have packed buildings and play
to that because let us face it, as a front man and a lot of
front men, we have a little bit of egos, all of us. And rather
than take that little bit extra money----
The Chairman. Fortunately, no one in politics has that.
Mr. Ritchie. Yes, not at all. So it is getting the prices
we set getting them in the hands of the fans.
The Chairman. You also talked about how artists have lost
leverage in the ticketing system and, obviously, venues make
relationships with ticket sellers.
Can you explain what it means, how performers have lost
leverage, and what might change if artists had more control
over ticket sales?
Mr. Ritchie. I mean, just with this--speaking of the
secondary market, if I went to Ticketmaster, I do not know, a
couple months ago--I got a tour coming up. I could go, like,
hey, we have agreed on a price for the ticket with the
building, with the fees, everything.
OK, I want to buy all 15,000 tickets. No way that is
happening. You can only get a certain amount for your fan club
that you want.
Maybe I want to do special things there. Maybe I want to do
things like, you know, give--like I said, have first class
tickets available like an airline, but then also have some
really cheap tickets around there without doing dynamic
pricing, which kind of takes one ticket right next to another
ticket and for no reason just jacks it up.
I would rather be transparent about this going into it,
like, yes, we know we have first-class customers, people who
have worked hard and done well. We want to provide them very
expensive tickets so they are going to be there toward the end.
I also want to have very cheap tickets, but I want to lay
this out across the board. Just all sorts of unique things we
could do with those tickets, whether it is giveaways, fan
clubs. Some people have corporate deals they want to do things
with.
And it is not like they have not worked with us on that. I
am not saying Ticketmaster does not. But just the freedom to
say, like, I do not want my ticket resold at all.
I would rather a couple percentage, a few hundred people
kind of get screwed over and say, you know, I cannot sell my
ticket back--I got to eat it--because I know right now if that
happened that 90, 95, 96 percent of those people would have a
great experience of buying the ticket.
And some of these things now I have heard in the last 6
months, we can do that. We can do that. I am, like, why could
not we do that for all these years, and it seems like, like I
said, people are being reactive instead of proactive.
The Chairman. Let me ask the other witnesses do you agree
with Mr. Ritchie, number one, that as an artist he could not
buy, say, all 15,000 tickets, and if that--if you agree that
under the status quo he cannot, why not?
Mr. Wall. I can answer that, Senator. The reason is because
in the United States the tickets are issued and owned by the
venues. The ticket is literally a license to come onto the
premises during the show.
And so there are venue interests here that are reflected in
thousands of contracts, and what the venues will defer to Mr.
Ritchie or any other artist on are on the pricing, resale
restrictions, things like that, but they are not going to give
up their property rights in the tickets.
Mr. Berry. We too are rooting for fan success, Senator
Cruz. We believe that the artist and the artist's success and
event success we want to see sold out. We help achieve 100
percent sold out, but at the end of the day, I agree the
artist, they should set whatever price they want to set.
I think Kid Rock, if I may, I think he is absolutely right.
If he wants to set different tiers of his pricing he can, and
fans should have that option. They should also have the option,
if they choose, to recover their costs if they cannot use it or
to be able to resell it. Ticketmaster does not make it very
easy, sir.
Sometimes these price caps come with price floors. It
happened to me--and I am in the industry--last year up in
Baltimore to see Billy Joel and Stevie Nicks. Took my kid up
there.
One of us could not make it due to business, and we were
not allowed to even resell it for $50. It was a $180 ticket.
They set a floor. That seat went empty. An empty seat does not
buy beer, hot dogs, or merchandise.
So we think there ought to be options for consumers.
Mr. Weingarden. I do not think anybody disagrees with the
fact that there should be some resale available for those types
of events that occur.
That being said, when a bot or somebody comes in and
purchases hundreds of tickets or whatnot, and we are looking at
it as a venue as a sold-out performance so we staff as such,
with 100 percent staffing, the whole lot, and we are also
paying the artist for those--for that sold out show as well.
And, unfortunately, when those brokers cannot get their
tickets sold they--we will see a drop count, which is how many
people are actually through the door, of 60 percent to 70
percent. Now we have lost 30 percent to 40 percent of the
income from food and beverage, which is how we make our money
as a venue.
And so--and to put the salt on the wound is that these
brokers, these scalpers, will then claim fraud on all of the
unsold tickets and will get their money back from these credit
card companies, and so we will get--and we will get charged
that as well. They are called ``charge backs''.
So not only do we lose 30, 40 percent on those tickets that
go unsold for the food and beverage, we get double charged on
the chargeback and there is no way for us to make our money
back at all.
The Chairman. All right. So my time has expired but, Mr.
Ritchie, I will give you a chance if you want to respond to
those comments. I do not know if you have any response.
Mr. Ritchie. I think they are--I think we are all---for
lack of a better term, we are all kind of smoking the same
dope.
The Chairman. All right. That spices up the hearing even
more.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
Senator Cantwell, you are recognized.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator, have you gone?
Senator Blunt Rochester. I have not.
Senator Cantwell. Do you want to allow her to go or------
Senator Blackburn. Sure, it is fine.
Senator Blunt Rochester, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you very much, Madam Chair,
and thank you also to the Ranking Member.
A special thank you to Ranking Member Cantwell for letting
me go before her, and to the witnesses, thank you so much for
being here.
I appreciate the work of Senators Blackburn and Lujan on
the MAIN Event Ticketing Act, and also Senators Schmitt and
Markey on the TICKET Act. I came to Washington to fight for
Delaware families--the fans, artists, and consumers.
To me, live events should not be a luxury, but all too
often fans are actually facing a stacked deck online from
hidden fees, to misleading listings, to speculative tickets, to
bots that scoop up all the inventory in seconds.
As everyone has said, I think many of us have experienced
it. I too experienced it for Beyonce tickets. When I served in
the House, I offered an amendment that was included in the
previous version of the TICKET Act to crack down on deceptive
ticketing websites or fake URLs, and I am committed to building
on that work and making online ticketing fairer, more
transparent, and more affordable for fans.
Mr. Berry, we know cybersecurity is a major threat to
online ticket consumers. As Anthropic found in a November 2025
report, cybersecurity attacks are now beginning to use AI
agents to execute cyber attacks by themselves.
Mr. Berry, is the online ticket industry prepared for the
AI agent cybersecurity threat?
Mr. Berry. Senator, it is a constantly evolving challenge,
and the bottom line is the industry has to meet that challenge.
Senator Blunt Rochester. So you would say----
Mr. Berry. Yes.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Yes?
Mr. Berry. And primarily when we examine the bot problem,
because it is a problem--you have heard today these are
attacks--there is no place in the system for them.
Jumping ahead of a consumer in line and scooping up the
tickets just should not be something that can be done by
technology. Candidly, that just speaks to an anti-fan approach.
But it happens in the primary sector, so when tickets first
go online is when these attacks happen. We have a member of our
forum that, you know, does a very good job. We are talking 99
percent records they can provide the specific numbers, but it
is very high in terms of keeping them out.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Yes, I would say I remain still
very, very much concerned. For example, the Associated Press
reported last year that a crew in New York illegally and
without the AI tools--this was without the AI tools--used e-
mail redirects to take over accounts and then resold more than
900 digital tickets for pricey events, including the Taylor
Swift concerts.
Considering this and many other examples, Mr. Wall, what
steps has Live Nation taken that will reassure consumers that
the ticketing marketplace will be fair and secure?
Mr. Wall. Thank you, Senator.
It is obviously an important question with AI and all the
various manifestations, and we are very much looking at both
the positives and the negatives of AI.
Your question about the defenses, one of the things we are
seeing--Mr. Ritchie mentioned earlier about how an important
tool that we use to stop the bad actors is identity
verification.
Well, of course, now what we are seeing is AI agents
pretending to be humans to try to pass the identity
verification.
Right now, I think we are on top of that issue but it is
one of the major initiatives that we have announced at the
company as an across-the-board investment in the AI
technologies, both on the kind that can serve the fan and the
kind that can protect the fan.
Senator Blunt Rochester. And I know you just mentioned new
steps have been taken to address it.
Mr. Weingarden and Mr. Wall, one popular tactic is used and
it is called the wall garden model in exchange for stronger
security, and the model requires consumers to give up some of
their personal data and convenience by locking tickets into a
special app that prevents using these tickets with screenshots
or wallets.
Yet, reports like the one from 404 Media suggest resellers
can still bypass these walled gardens.
Mr. Weingarden, from the independent venue perspective, do
ticket transfer restrictions genuinely reduce fraud?
Mr. Weingarden. You know what? I am not quite sure if that
actually reduces fraud or not, but I do know that at some
points it is necessary to be able to transfer tickets to--if
you cannot make a show or something like that.
But I am not quite sure and I had never heard of the--
this--the walled garden either. So I am sorry that I do not
know about that answer.
Senator Blunt Rochester. That is OK. That is OK.
I will submit some more questions for the record for the
witnesses but, again, bottom line, this is truly about the
fans, it is about the artists, and it is about making sure that
we in this age also care about what is coming next, whether it
is AI or quantum and how it is going to be attacking these
systems.
So thank you very much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cantwell, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this important hearing and for you and Senator
Hickenlooper, but I want to thank you particularly for your
advocacy for the music industry and for your steadfast approach
in helping on all sorts of legislation that is trying to make
sure that content created by artists are protected and that it
is not replicated with AI and a variety of other things.
So I am definitely supportive of the speculative TICKET Act
that Senator Cruz and I we passed here, but it has not gone all
the way through the process.
Definitely I think Senators Markey and Schmitt--I think
Senator Schmitt was here earlier and mentioned that he is
supporting that--definitely in support of upgrading the BOTS
Act of 2016. I do not think it is strong enough.
But I think the larger issue here--first of all, love music
in the Northwest. We are a big music state, and, Mr. Ritchie,
appreciate you mentioning Pearl Jam. We have lots of venues. We
have lots of places for artists to perform.
We are very proud of that, but we are not proud if we
cannot get the artists in those venues, and the sea change that
has happened in the meantime that we have had this conversation
is the fact that Live Nation and the tickets are now 80 percent
of the market.
So the Department of Justice, along with 40 attorney
generals including my home state, are currently suing Live
Nation and Ticketmaster including monopolizing live events
industry.
So, Mr. Weingarden, earlier this conversation came up about
the radius clauses in contracts and so, you know, what are we
doing to look at this management structure?
It was very interesting. The Seahawks said, you know what?
Do not resell your tickets, last Sunday. Do not. They literally
sent a message to all the season ticket holders.
They said, do not do it or we will take your tickets away
from you, and believe me I did not see any Rams fans in that
stadium, like, a few, like 12, OK. But the fans knew they were
serious.
Now, they could have made lots of money off those tickets,
but the venue in this case said do not do it. So they do have
the power to do something here. They just do not use it, and
that is an interesting point.
To Mr. Ritchie's earlier testimony, why do they not,
particularly when the artists are trying to protect the fans
and protect their fan base?
But, Mr. Weingarden, it is even worse when the marketplace
does not function and Mr. Ritchie cannot go to one of your
venues because somebody already wrote a clause that says that
he cannot or that you cannot go within certain miles.
So what are we doing to create a competitive environment?
You know, again, we have lots of venues that are in the 5,000
to 7,000 thousand seat range created by lots of outdoor sites,
you know, tribes.
You know, we have 29 tribes. They are creating venues.
Like, there are lots of opportunities for people to go but not
if somebody is shutting the market down because they control 80
percent of the market.
So what do we do to get at these contract clauses that
would give other artists like Mr. Ritchie the availability to
go where they want? So why cannot he, you know, or some of
these other artists just agree to go to another venue at a
lower price?
Mr. Weingarden. I think that asking Kid Rock and his
management about those deals, you know, would probably be a
good idea, but also the--you know, it is not necessarily----
Senator Cantwell. I am asking you whether we need to see
the contracts that show that these kind of manipulative
practices are actually being deployed that curtail artists from
signing up in your venues. That is what I want to know.
Mr. Weingarden. I think that when you are talking about
multi-million dollar national touring--all-in touring deals,
and they all want to make sure that they are playing in those
Live Nation/Ticketmaster rooms, the artists will play in just
those rooms only.
And even, you know, with some of these, like, bigger
festivals that are playing in L.A. or in other places, they
make these incredibly massive radius clauses that no artist can
play anywhere within, you know, the western half of the United
States for a specific period of time.
And so, they are locked in contractually to not do that,
and when you are talking about, again, these multi-million
dollar contracts, that is something that happens.
I do think that with radius clauses when you are talking
about different artists and playing in the same market and
whatnot, I do think that there is some discussion that needs to
be had around announcements so you are not cannibalizing the
different ticket sales.
But when we are talking about, you know, the fact that
somebody cannot play in Colorado because they are playing at a
festival in Los Angeles or something like that, those are
definitely more egregious.
Senator Cantwell. If Brandi Carlile wants to play the
Gorge----
Mr. Weingarden. Right.
Senator Cantwell.--and she makes an agreement to play the
Gorge, but Brandi Carlile also wants to go to Walla Walla and
have an event, she should be allowed to go and have----
Mr. Weingarden. She should.
Senator Cantwell. And she should--and because otherwise you
are just price gouging.
Mr. Weingarden. Right.
Senator Cantwell. You are not giving the artists the
flexibility. You are basically taking the consumer and you are
price gouging, running up the price.
And so I just think these clauses are the ones that are,
again, with a control of 80 percent of the market, Mr. Wall, it
is just too much, and I know that is what is happening to art.
Mr.--I mean, Mr. Ritchie, do you have a comment about this?
You seem to know a little bit.
Mr. Ritchie. Well, as much as I would like to agree with
you, if you have a radius clause, if I am going to play a big
place and I sell out that place and I want to play in other
places in that radius, I am kind of battling myself.
It is like having a great restaurant and I am going to open
up another great restaurant right next door. I am going to
split my audience, you know, and it just might not make the
most sense.
But what I am hear--that can be debated until the cows come
home. I think I am right on----
Senator Cantwell. Well, I am saying they are curtailing
these venues from getting these future events over a time
period.
Mr. Ritchie. I think what you are talking about----
Senator Cantwell. So what I am saying is you want to let
the pressure off where you are----
Mr. Ritchie. I think what you are talking about is if Live
Nation owns 80 percent of this market, they own most of the
venues and the management and this, that, and the other
ticketing company, and an act is coming up, and they know they
are going to blow up, right? They are going to be a big act,
but they are still in, like, the 5,000-seater range.
Live Nation has bought the Fillmore or whatever that is
5,000 seats, but there is an independent promoter that owns
another one. Live Nation can come in if they are going to get a
$10,000 guarantee and they can say, we are going to invest in
their future--we are going to get $15,000, $20,000, and that
small promoter can never compete with them. Or they are going
to give them some back-end deal here or there.
Is that illegal? I do not know. Is it bad business, good
business? I am not sure. But, you know, there is something to
be said when you own most of the market, you know, which nobody
really in Congress voted for. You know, they were all kind of
against the merger.
Senator Cantwell. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
Senator Lummis.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am not on the Subcommittee but I am on the Commerce
Committee, and when I was downstairs in my office just now and
heard some of this testimony, I cleared my schedule to run up
because I have gotten so many complaints since I have been here
about Ticketmaster specifically.
And so when I have a chance to ask you some questions, Mr.
Wall, I am pleased to. Can you explain--first of all, welcome.
Mr. Wall. Thank you.
Senator Lummis. And welcome to all of you.
Is Ticketmaster a monopoly?
Mr. Wall. No, we are not.
Senator Lummis. And tell me how you come to that
conclusion?
Mr. Wall. Because we are at the--near the end of the road
in the antitrust case and the math has been done, and if you
just look at the addressable market for large venues, the
government's economist is putting our market share under 50
percent so that is not a monopoly share.
They have an alternative argument that looks at 20 percent
of that market and says that we have a monopoly of that, but
there is no such thing as a monopoly of 20 percent of a market.
That is why.
Senator Lummis. So what defines a monopoly?
Mr. Wall. It is typically that you have the ability to
charge monopoly prices, reduce output, things like that.
Senator Lummis. OK. If you control artists, venues, and
tickets, and a person has to choose--who chooses your venue has
to use Ticketmaster or an artist that you have a relationship
with, that sounds like a monopoly to me, because you have
relationships with artists and with venues and with tickets.
And when you are able to combine the three it forces
artists to use your venues and your tickets, it requires venues
to use your artists and your tickets, and it takes choice away
from both the artists and the venues, and to me, that sounds
like a monopoly.
Mr. Wall. I understand, Senator, and that is the story we
hear a lot. But if I could just give you a couple of data
points without getting too argumentative about this.
We are not a big--we may be the largest venue owner in the
sense of the number of venues but we do not have any stadiums.
We do not have any arenas. So where all of these big shows
play--the major concert venues--we own hardly any of them.
What we own--the only venues that we own that even fit
within this market, the government is claiming, are
amphitheaters, which are a small part of the whole.
And as far as artist choice, the one thing I will just say
is know us by the company we keep. We are on this team. We do
not wear the same uniform by any means, but we are on the
artists' team here and, you know----
Mr. Ritchie. So I would like to start calling the shots
then.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wall. Yes. But it is important to point out that on
almost everything, our position is exactly what Mr. Ritchie's
is and it is because his position is very typical of what the
artist's position is.
Senator Lummis. Mr. Ritchie, how would you respond to my
question?
Mr. Ritchie. Well, I think monopoly is having no
competition. I think it is the opposite of this number and that
number. I cannot keep up with you, Mr. Wall, with the numbers.
But it is lack of competition, and I think if there is more
competition, let us say, in the ticketing market, then that
would make things better for the fans and for prices and for
the artists.
And, you know, and I would say let the artists bear the
blunt. Take the risk and reward. You know what I mean? If I say
that I want tickets to be sold with a no resale--you cannot
resell them, period--my fans are going to go like, oh, I could
not go and Kid Rock is a jerk. Whatever, that is fine.
I mean, they pretty much bear the blunt of it now and
StubHub does, and rightfully so--rightfully so, because they do
not give us the freedom to do what we want with our inventory.
They do not exist without me and everyone else. That is a fact.
I think we can all agree on that.
Senator Lummis. Right. Mr. Berry, how would you respond to
my questions?
Mr. Berry. First and foremost, on the monopoly question,
Senator, I am looking forward to the Justice Department and 40
state attorneys general--bipartisan team of attorneys general
figuring that out.
The Department of Justice should stay the course, finish
the job. If they are watching today, do not settle. Let this
play out.
As a fan foremost--that is how I got into all of this--I am
pretty sure if it is someone in the schoolyard that can bully
and beat everybody up that sounds like a monopoly to me, and
that is what is happening.
Senator Lummis. Mr. Weingard? Garden, sorry.
Mr. Weingarden. Yes, I--we--the artists hold all the
marbles. I mean, the artist and the artist's team, they hold
all the marbles and we want to play with the marbles.
So we are going to do everything that we can to make sure
that the artist is happy and we want to--and get them what they
need.
At the same time, when you are dealing with, you know, a
monopolistic corporation or you are dealing with a bunch of
StubHub, you know, and secondary--and scalpers and whatnot that
pay none of the costs--none of these costs are getting paid by
these scalpers. None of them.
We pay them constantly, and when that is happening, it is
not equitable. It is not fair. There is no competition. You
know, they are making--their profit margins are enormous
because they are not sharing in any of the risk.
Senator Lummis. Mr. Ritchie, do you hold all the cards?
Mr. Ritchie. No, hardly. I just want to say there is so
much money in this business there is enough to go around for
everyone.
That is a fact, but the one thing we can agree on--there is
a lot of merit here to everything we are talking about, but we
have to get the middleman out of the way. Just let me get the
tickets to the fans at the prices I want to set.
Senator Lummis. Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Senator Hickenlooper, you are
recognized.
Senator Hickenlooper. I was enjoying being incognito.
Long before I ever dreamed of getting into politics, I
opened a--I was an out-of-work geologist and opened a large
restaurant in Denver called the Wine Coop Brewing Company.
Brewed its own beer.
It took us two years to raise the money. My mother would
not even invest, although you do not really care about that. We
put a jazz club in the basement, so I became a venue, and so we
were the place between Chicago and San Francisco, so Freddie
Hubbard would come and play a weekend.
We did not ever get any of the big acts but we did well
enough to lose $30,000 or $40,000 a year, which I looked at as
collateral damage because people came in and ate in the
restaurant upstairs.
But I did get a sense of how it worked. I got to be friends
with a guy named Doug Kauffman, who was a local promoter.
He was trying to renovate this beautiful old theater from
the 1920s, the Ogden Theater. I knew him from that, and he was
putting on a show at Red Rocks and he had Spin Doctor, Gin
Blossoms, and Cracker.
This was, like, in 1993 or 1994, and his father, who had
always loaned him the money when time came due to make the big
down payment for the lead act, which in this case was the Spin
Doctors, his father was building a--renovating his house so he
could not do it, so he came to me.
And I got my restaurant. We co-signed the $40,000 loan so
we could give all that money to the Spin Doctors, who turned
out to be out of fashion by the time the concert started.
And Doug had promised me that--you know, he could tell how
much they had already sold 25 percent of the seats 2 months out
and he said, I guarantee you--I guarantee you, you will not
lose money, and we did not.
And that, you know, there is a poster somewhere in the
universe produced by nobody in particular presents--that is
Doug Kauffman's company--and the Wine Group Brewing Company.
But I saw just how arbitrary and how fast it all happened.
I ended up--you know, basically, I took all my ill-gotten gains
and put them back into gift certificates to help him renovate
the Ogden Theater, but it created this.
Once I became mayor--and the City of Denver owns the Red
Rocks--I became obsessed with why can we not do more acts and
more things, and it turned out we could. It turned out the
mayor gets to make that final decision, and I think that is
where a lot of my passion from this kind of comes from is
seeing how it works up close and personal.
Let me start. Mr. Weingarden, thank you for joining us
today, and your work in the Colorado music industry has helped
keep us a leader in music.
Now that the center from Washington is gone I can say
really on a per capita basis way beyond Washington.
Next year, Boulder is actually going to start hosting the
Sundance Film Festival. As you mentioned, when fans purchase a
ticket, they expect to be allowed to enter the show to get what
they paid for.
Can you paint a picture for us? When Coloradans attend one
of your venues and realize they are the victim of buying
speculative tickets or fake tickets, what happens?
Mr. Weingarden. Yes, and that is a daily--that is a daily
occurrence. Anytime that we have shows we have issues. It does
not matter how big the act is or how small the act is, people
are coming into our box offices at the Fox Theater, the Boulder
Theater, the Aggie, and Fort Collins, and they are--and not
only is the fan helpless but the venue is helpless because we
have no--the only way that we can help them, as I had mentioned
before, is that we can give them--we have these sheets printed
out, laminated sheets printed out that say the customer support
of each of the different--the scalper sites so they can call.
But the problem is is that, one, the phones do not get
answered, the e-mails do not get--people do not respond to the
e-mails, and it is always after the fact.
And so what happens is the--we are at a loss. We have no
recourse that evening, and so we are left with, you know, a
father who brought his teenage daughter to a show. They are--
maybe they have come in from out of town, they have bought--
they have hotels, they have got--they went to the restaurant,
they have done everything they did. They are out of that money.
Where does that----
Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
Mr. Weingarden. Where is the recourse there as well, you
know? So we see this on a daily basis and it is a massive
problem.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, we will do our best to fix
that.
Mr. Ritchie, and I have been--I am sure you have been
astonished seeing, just as we all have, that the revenue that
an artist makes is now no longer your royalties. It is where
you perform, at least for most people. I think you might be in
a different league in that.
But you have worked with countless venues and performers
and middlemen and promoters and platforms, and as much as you
love seeing fans sold out, I wanted to ask just a question
about dynamic pricing and whether there is not a way to get the
artist more money from that.
If that ticket is going to be resold, should not the artist
get a piece of that, a cut of that, and would that not justify
that open market after the tickets have been sold?
Mr. Ritchie. I do not know if it justifies it, but it
definitely would have shut everybody up for a little while
longer if they would have let the artist share----
Senator Hickenlooper. That is all we hope for in the
Congress, right?
Mr. Ritchie. You know, secondary market or whatnot, but I
think that was kind of--they started this thing called platinum
ticketing and that is kind of what it was. It kind of shared a
little--some of that revenue with the artist. It was just
this--it is like, no, no, we do not want any of this.
You know, and to be honest with you, back in the day, I did
not really understand it. I do not think most acts do either.
You got these managers who are not really managers anymore.
Manager used to just look out for one act. Now they have these
conglomerate of acts. They have 10, 20, sometimes hundreds of
acts.
So they got to play nice with everybody. They cannot just
go, screw you, this is what my artist wants to do, blah, blah,
blah, and they are going to take as much money as they can
because they usually get paid a percentage off the top.
So I am not a fan of any of that. Like I said, I would
rather just have them like an airline. I am going to have some
first-class seats. I am going to have some economy seats. You
are going to know what they are right up front.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Well, I am out of time but I do
appreciate all of you being here. You know, when I first got
elected Governor, we had One Republic, Lumineers, Nathaniel
Rateliff. All came and donated their time to play for our
inaugural. That was fun.
Senator Blackburn. And like most good fans, you remember
those special nights----
Senator Hickenlooper. Exactly.
Senator Blackburn.--around a concert and around a venue.
Senator Markey, recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you
to Ranking Member Hickenlooper for holding today's important
hearing.
And with my New England Patriots now playing Senator
Cantwell's Seattle Seahawks in a Super Bowl in less than two
weeks, this hearing comes at a fitting time because prices are
sky high.
In fact, right now they are double the price to go to
Denver for the Patriots-Denver game in that beautiful snow
globe that you created.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. And so just absolutely--he was Governor and
Mayor in Denver so just incredible.
But it is just absolutely crazy how high the prices are for
a single ticket to these games, and it also comes just a few
months ahead of the World Cup in the United States where ticket
demand and ticket prices are just absolutely astronomical right
now.
So consumers are understandably frustrated by the state of
ticketing today. From hidden fees to ghost tickets to deceptive
advertising, misleading ticketing practices plague the industry
and it is time for them to end.
That is why Senator Schmitt and I have introduced the
TICKET Act to clean up these unfair and harmful practices and
we are doing it on a bipartisan basis, and I thank Senator Cruz
and Senator Cantwell for signing up for this legislation and
moving it through by a voice vote last year.
And I would like to ask for this letter from the Consumer
League--National Consumers League, in support of the TICKET Act
to be included in the record by----
Senator Blackburn. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
National Consumers League
Washington, DC, November 5, 2025
Hon. Brianna K. Nadeau, Chairperson,
Committee on Public Works and Operations,
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Re: Submission of Supplemental Context on Testimony Supporting the
RESALE Amendment Act of 2025 (B26-0224)
Dear Chair Nadeau and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of the National Consumers League (NCL), I respectfully
submit the attached memorandum entitled ``Highlighting the Need for
Context and Clarifications on Testimony Supporting the RESALE Amendment
Act of 2025 (B26-0224).'' This document is intended to assist the
Committee in its review of testimony presented at the October 22, 2025,
hearing.
As outlined in the memorandum, a number of claims made by witnesses
in support of the legislation relied on incomplete or inaccurate data,
lacked methodological transparency, or omitted relevant affiliations
bearing on the credibility of their arguments. NCL urges the Council to
rely on verifiable evidence in evaluating these assertions to ensure
that any legislative action taken serves the interests of District
consumers and supports a fair, transparent live entertainment
marketplace.
As noted in our testimony before the committee, NCL objects to huge
secondary market ticket mark-ups that rip off consumers. Many of the
reforms proposed in the RESALE Amendment Act echo protections that NCL
has long supported at the Federal and state levels.\1\ Indeed many, if
not most, of the RESALE Act's provisions, including a ban on
speculative ticketing, all-in pricing requirements, refund
requirements, anti-bot protections, and reseller registration
requirements already enjoy nearly universal stakeholder support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Iscil, Eden. Oral testimony before the Council of the District
of Columbia, Public Works and Operations Committee, October 22, 2025,
5:22:33 mark, video recording. Online: https://archive-
video.granicus.com/dc/dc_2b34ed3c-bcbc-428a-8f89-fcc1c53e5802.mp4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCL wholeheartedly supports the Council's efforts to reform a live
event ticket marketplace that puts industry giants like Live Nation and
unscrupulous scalpers first and fans last. We appreciate the
Committee's continued attention to consumer protection issues and its
commitment to evidence-based policymaking. NCL remains available to
provide further information or analysis at the Committee's request.
Respectfully submitted,
John Breyault,
Vice President, Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud,
National Consumers League.
Attachment
______
ATTACHMENT
November 5, 2025
Highlighting the Need for Context and Clarifications on Testimony
Supporting the RESALE Amendment Act of 2025 (B26-0224)
Introduction
The National Consumers League (NCL) respectfully submits this
document to provide additional context and clarification regarding
testimony presented in support of the RESALE Amendment Act of 2025
(B26-0224) at the Public Works and Operations Committee's October 22,
2025 hearing.\1\ Several claims made by industry representatives relied
on incomplete or misleading data, lacked transparency about sources, or
omitted relevant affiliations that bear on the credibility of their
arguments. NCL urges the Council to base its decisions on verifiable
evidence rather than industry-funded studies or anecdotal accounts, to
ensure that any legislative action on ticket resale protects both
consumers and the integrity of the District's live entertainment
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Works and Operations Committee Hearing Details (October
22, 2025) Online: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Hearings/hearings/1952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Claims regarding low ticket fraud rates in Europe are not consistent
with reported ticket fraud rate increases
``You will hear about people claiming that resale price caps
result in fraud. Just hasn't been the international experiences
in countries like Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Poland,
etc.''
--Kevin Erickson, Future of Music Coalition
NCL Response: With the caveat that these kinds of crimes are
significantly underreported and that there are language barriers in
access to local reporting, there is data out of Europe showing issues
with resale cap enforcement. For example, Belgium's Federal government
recently reported a 250 percent increase in ticket fraud.\2\ Danish
police also noted an uptick in recent years, from below 50 reports a
year before 2019 to 496 reports in 2023.\3\ In Poland, consumers still
faced fraud issues, with a 52 percent increase in reported scams to the
payment app Revolut ahead of Taylor Swift concerts. Revolut stated that
91 percent of the transactions were initiated on Facebook.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Walker, Lauren. ``'Tip of the iceberg': Reports of fake tickets
to events in Belgium have doubled.'' The Brussels Times. (June 25,
2024) Online: https://www.brusselstimes.com/1108280/tip-of-the-iceberg-
over-doubled-reports-of-fake-tickets-to-belgian-events
\3\ Santos, Stacy Simmons. ``Ticket Fraud Surges Amid High Demand
in Denmark.'' CelebrityAccess.com (August 2, 2023). Online: https://
celebrityaccess.com/2023/08/02/ticket-fraud-surges-amid-high-demand-in-
denmark/
\4\ Ujazdowski, Adam. ``Revolut Confirms Increase in Ticket Scams
Ahead of Concerts in Warsaw.'' Poland Insight. (July 31, 2024). Online:
https://polandinsight.com/revolut-confirms-increase-in-ticket-scams-
ahead-of-concerts-in-warsaw-55806/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Rates of fraudulent tickets at I.M.P. venues require additional
data
``Secondary sites are awash with fraudulent tickets, and they
may have a quote, unquote `guarantee,' for tickets, but when
fans come to our box offices with fake tickets, it's us at the
venue that are faced with an understandably angry customer that
thinks it's our fault.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Audrey Fix Schaefer, Testimony in Support of B26-0224,
Restricting Egregious Scalping Against Live Entertainment (RESALE)
Amendment Act of 2025, Committee on Public Works and Operations,
Council of the District of Columbia, October 22, 2025. Online: https://
lims.dccouncil.gov/Hearings/hearings/1952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Audrey Schaeffer, I.M.P.
NCL response: This statement cites no data for either the scale of
fraudulent tickets on secondary platforms or how often fans present
fake tickets at I.M.P. box offices. While the secondary exchanges are
not perfect, they are regulated and do not intentionally seek to
defraud their consumers. It is likely that ticket fraud will increase
if policies push ticket sales away from regulated secondary exchanges,
as price caps are likely to do.
III. Transparency about bill supporters' links to Live Nation is
necessary
``MAC is an artist-driven organization that fights to ensure
that music creators have a voice at the table in policy
negotiations concerning industry practices that will directly
impact their careers, their livelihoods, and their families.''
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ron Gubitz, Testimony in Support of B26-0224, Restricting
Egregious Scalping Against Live Entertainment (RESALE) Amendment Act of
2025, on behalf of the Music Artists Coalition, before the Committee on
Public Works and Operations, Council of the District of Columbia,
October 21, 2025. Online: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Hearings/hearings/
1952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Ron Gubitz, Music Artists Coalition (MAC)
NCL response: Gubitz's claim that MAC is an ``artist-driven
organization'' neglects to note MAC's close ties to Live Nation
Entertainment, with multiple two board members serving as current or
former Live Nation executives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Music Artists Coalition. ``Who We Are.'' Music Artists
Coalition, 2025, https://www.musicartistscoalition.com/who-we-are
Accessed November 5, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC board member Irving Azoff is the former CEO and chairman of
Ticketmaster and executive chairman of Live Nation. Azoff oversaw the
merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster in 2010. In 2012, Azoff stated,
``[a]fter successfully overseeing the integration of Live Nation and
Ticketmaster over the past two years, my job here is done.'' \8\ Azoff
is also a co-founder of Oak View Group,\9\ a venue management company
implicated in the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit
against Live Nation Entertainment.\10\ The Federal Government stated
that ``Live Nation and Oak View Group have colluded and established a
partnership to allocate business lines, avoid competing with each
other, and chart a mutually beneficial plan to cement Live Nation's
dominance.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Live Nation Entertainment. ``Irving Azoff Resigns as Live
Nation Entertainment Chairman and Front Line CEO.'' PR Newswire, 31
Dec. 2012, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/irving-azoff-
resigns-as-live-nation-entertainment-chairman-and-front-line-ceo-
185320572.html. Accessed November 5, 2025.
\9\ Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. ``Tim Leiweke and Azoff MSG
Entertainment Join Forces to Launch the Oak View Group (OVG).''
Investor Relations--Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., November 16,
2015, https://investor.msgsports.com/press-releases/news-details/2015/
Tim-Leiweke-and-Azoff-MSG-Entertainment-Join-Forces-to-Launch-the-Oak-
View-Group-OVG/default.aspx.
\10\ United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs.
``Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing
Markets Across the Live Concert Industry.'' U.S. Department of Justice,
May 23, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-
department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-
live-concert
\11\ United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
Complaint: United States of America and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation
Entertainment and Ticketmaster LLC. 2024, p. 31. Online: https://
www.justice.gov/atr/media/1353101/dl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Azoff, MAC board member Ali Harnell is the global
president and chief strategy officer for Live Nation Women.\12\ MAC
board member Coran Capshaw has partnered with Live Nation to develop
multiple venues (e.g., Ascend Amphitheater in Nashville, Tennessee\13\
and Riverfront Amphitheater in Richmond, Virginia\14\) and holds equity
positions in multiple large scale music festivals that Live Nation has
stock in (e.g., Bonaroo\15\ and Lollapalooza\16\ \17\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Harnell, Ali. ``Ali Harnell--LinkedIn.'' LinkedIn, https://
www.linkedin.com/in/aliharnell/ Accessed November 5, 2025
\13\ Capshaw, Coran. ``Coran Capshaw, Founder, Red Light
Management.'' Pollstar News, May 16, 2019, Online: https://
news.pollstar.com/2019/05/16/coran-capshaw-founder-red-light-
management/
\14\ Spiers, Jonathan. `` `You Can Almost Feel the Energy':
Riverfront Amphitheater Project Breaks Ground.'' Richmond BizSense,
January 25, 2024, https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/01/25/can-almost-
feel-energy-riverfront-amphitheater-project-breaks-ground/
\15\ Sisario, Ben. ``Live Nation Takes Control of Bonnaroo
Festival.'' The New York Times, April 26, 2015, https://
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/business/media/live-nation-takes-control-of-
bonnaroo-festival.html
\16\ Dent, Robert. ``Universal Music Chairman Tops Billboard
Industry Power List.'' Chicago Tribune, February 8, 2013, https://
www.chicagotribune.com/2013/02/08/universal-music-chairman-tops-
billboard-industry-power-list-2/
\17\ ``Live Nation Takes Control of Lollapalooza's C3 Presents.''
Music Business Worldwide, December 21, 2014, https://
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/live-nation-takes-control-of-lolla
paloozas-c3-presents/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC board member Susan Genco is a co-president of the Azoff
Company,\18\ an entertainment company founded by Irving Azoff that
includes Oak View Group in its portfolio.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Susan Genco--LinkedIn.'' LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/
in/susan-genco-5b0484166/ Accessed November 5, 2025
\19\ Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. ``The Azoff Company
Holdings Completes Acquisition of the Madison Square Garden Company's
50 Percent Interest in Azoff MSG Entertainment.'' Company News,
December 6, 2018, https://www.msgentertainment.com/the-azoff-company-
holdings-completes-acquisition-of-the-madison-square-garden-companys-
50-percent-interest-in-azoff-msg-entertainment/
``I represent the National Independent Venue Association. We
are the small stages in every community in the country. We are
promoters, we are venues, we are festivals, we are small
businesses and we're nonprofits.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Steven Parker, Executive Director, National Independent Venue
Association. Oral testimony before the Committee on Public Works and
Operations, Council of the District of Columbia, October 22, 2025.
Hearing on B26-0224, Restricting Egregious Scalping Against Live
Entertainment (RESALE) Amendment Act of 2025. Video recording, 3:20:27
mark. Online: https://archive-video.granicus.com/dc/dc_2b34ed3c-bcbc-
428a-8f89-fcc1c53e5802.mp4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Steven Parker, National Independent Venue Association (NIVA)
NCL Response: Mr. Parker's statement neglects to mention that in
addition to his role at NIVA, he is also the Chairman of the Board of
the Country Music Association (CMA) Foundation\21\ and an Ex-Officio
Member of the CMA itself. CMA has numerous Live Nation executives on
its Board of Directors, including Brian O'Connell (Live Nation
Nashville), Anna-Sophie Mertens (Live Nation UK), Sally Williams (Live
Nation).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Stephen Parker--LinkedIn.'' LinkedIn, https://
www.linkedin.com/in/sparkerva/ Accessed November 5, 2025
\22\ Country Music Association, Inc. (CMA). ``Board.'' CMA Member,
https://cmamember.com/board/ Accessed November 5, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIVA's Board President is Audrey Schaeffer of I.M.P.\23\ All of
I.M.P.'s venues are clients of Ticketmaster for primary ticketing
services.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ National Independent Venue Association. ``NIVA Board &
Committees.'' National Independent Venue Association, https://
www.nivassoc.org/board-committees Accessed November 5, 2025
\24\ I.M.P. Concerts, https://impconcerts.com/faq/ Accessed
November 5, 2025
``The Fix the Tix Coalition is a broad alliance of
organizations and professionals across the live entertainment
ecosystem including Universal Music Group, the Recording
Industry Association of America, the Recording Academy, SAG-
AFTRA, the National Independent Venue Association, and many
independent venues, artists, and fan organizations across the
country.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Fix the Tix Coalition. Written Testimony on the Restricting
Egregious Scalping Against Live Entertainment (RESALE) Amendment Act of
2025. Public Works and Operations Committee, Council of the District of
Columbia, 22 Oct. 2025. https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Hearings/hearings/
1952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Fix the Tix Coalition written testimony
NCL Response: Members of the Fix the Tix Coalition\26\ also have
ties to Live Nation Entertainment. The Music Artists Coalition has
significant Live Nation influence on its board as outlined above.
Universal Music Group has partnered with Live Nation on various
business dealings.\27\ Sean Moriarty, the former president and CEO of
Ticketmaster, is a board member of Eventbrite,\28\ which is also a Fix
the Tix Coalition member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Independent Venue Association. ``Fix The Tix.''
National Independent Venue Association, https://www.nivassoc.org/
fixthetix Accessed November 5, 2025
\27\ Live Nation Partners with Universal Music Group.'' License
Global, April 6, 2018, https://www.licenseglobal.com/music/live-nation-
partners-universal-music-group
\28\ Eventbrite, Inc. ``Board of Directors.'' Eventbrite--Corporate
Governance, https://investor.eventbrite.com/corporate-governance/board-
of-directors/default.aspx Accessed November 5, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. NIVA's ``State of Live'' report data requires additional context
The two biggest threats to their continued existence are Live
Nation and Ticketmaster and an unchecked resale market. . . .
Last week, my organization released a report that showed that
60 percent of independent stages in DC were not profitable.
Part of that is the scalper problem. Part of that is the resale
platform, and ultimately, businesses will close without action
by this council.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Steven Parker, Executive Director, National Independent Venue
Association. Oral testimony before the Committee on Public Works and
Operations, Council of the District of Columbia, October 22, 2025.
Hearing on B26-0224, Restricting Egregious Scalping Against Live
Entertainment (RESALE) Amendment Act of 2025. Video recording, 3:20:40
and 3:24:49 mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Steven Parker, National Independent Venue Association
NCL Response: This statement requires correction and context. Mr.
Parker's claim that scalping is one of the ``two biggest threats to
their continued existence'' is contradicted by NIVA's ``State of Live''
report that Mr. Parker apparently references. That report lists
``Scalpers and Predatory Resale Platforms'' and as the 7th most
frequently ranked operational challenge for independent venue, after
marketing, higher artist fees, staffing costs, inflation, monopolies,
and rising insurance costs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ National Independent Venue Association. The State of Live:
National Report. 2025. Pg. 10. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
5e91157c96fe495a4baf48f2/t/68e58e39bce25b729b47932e/1759874617679/2025-
NIVA-State-of-Live-Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``State of Live'' report also states that 64 percent of
independent stages were unprofitable in 2024. However, the report makes
no distinction between independent venues operated by non-profit
organizations versus for-profit companies. Despite Mr. Parker's
statement to the contrary NIVA's report did not specify how many of
those unprofitable venues are in the District. The report also noted
that nearly half (49 percent) of stages reporting difficulty in
maintaining their businesses in 2024 expect 2025 profitability to
improve.
V. NITO data relies on unclear data sources and flawed methodology
``Building on that data, the National Independent Talent
Organization recently conducted a study of 65 random shows by
artists represented by our members. The findings are
staggering.
Ticket resellers earned an average cumulative profit of $41,000
per show by charging roughly double the original ticket price.
In multiple cases, tickets were resold for 10 times face value.
In one instance, a ticket was resold for $1,014.49 when the
average face value was just $79.55.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Nichols, Randy. Testimony before the Council of the District
of Columbia, Committee on Business and Economic Development, Re: B26-
0224, the RESALE Amendment Act of 2025. National Independent Talent
Organization, 2025. Online: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Hearings/
hearings/1952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Randy Nichols, National Independent Talent Organization
NCL Response: The National Independent Talent Organization (NITO)
frequently cites a self-commissioned study to argue that restricting
ticket transfers benefits fans.\32\ However, the study's design and
data raise serious questions about its reliability and usefulness for
policymaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ National Independent Talent Organization. Ticket Resale Study.
October 2024, https://nitolive.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/NITO-
Ticket-Resale-Study.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the sample includes only 65 shows, with no explanation of
how they were chosen or whether they represent broader market
conditions. The lack of transparency around venue size, artist type,
and timing makes it impossible to know if the findings are
generalizable.
Second, the study fails to disclose its data sources or methods for
verifying resale prices. It appears to rely on ticket listings rather
than actual sales--an invalid assumption that inflates the apparent
cost of resale tickets. Moreover, because NITO represents only a small
segment of the live entertainment industry, its findings are not
necessarily applicable to larger venues or artists using different
ticketing models.
Finally, the report does not account for basic market variables
such as artist popularity, regional demand, or seasonality, nor does it
explain whether outliers distorted its averages. By attributing all
high resale prices to ``predatory resellers,'' the study overlooks
other possible explanations such as limited supply, strong fan demand,
or the pricing practices of primary sellers themselves. In short, the
study provides a selective and incomplete view of the ticket market.
Conclusion
In sum, the October 22nd hearing revealed significant gaps in the
data and transparency underlying many arguments in favor of the RESALE
Act. Claims of low fraud rates in Europe are contradicted by reports
showing sharp increases in ticket scams abroad. Assertions about
widespread fraud in U.S. secondary markets were unsupported by
verifiable data, while the role of regulated resale platforms in
protecting consumers was overlooked.
Several witnesses representing ``artist-driven'' or ``independent''
organizations also failed to disclose close ties to Live Nation
Entertainment and its affiliates, raising questions about potential
conflicts of interest.
Taken together, these issues highlight the need for a more data-
driven, transparent policymaking process before moving forward with
legislation that could limit consumer choice and push ticket
transactions into less regulated spaces. The Council should require
credible, independently verifiable data on fraud rates, resale pricing,
and market impacts before adopting measures that would affect both
consumers and small businesses across the District's live entertainment
ecosystem.
Senator Markey. I thank you.
The National Consumers League and other groups such as the
Sports Fan Coalition have been critical advocates for pro
consumer and pro competition policies and I am proud to have
their support on this bill.
And now I want to get each witness on the record about
important policies in the TICKET Act, and I recognize, as Mr.
Ritchie said earlier, that the TICKET Act does not solve every
problem. We are aware of that.
But I do want to get some of the basic answers on the
record in terms of what is in the bill itself, and so the first
would be on all-in pricing.
Starting from my left, do you agree that ticket sellers and
marketplaces should disclose the full price of a ticket up
front?
Mr. Ritchie?
Mr. Ritchie. Yes.
Mr. Wall. Absolutely.
Mr. Berry. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Weingarden. Yes.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Good.
Next, speculative ticketing. Do you support a ban on
speculative ticketing?
Mr. Ritchie. Yes.
Mr. Wall. In all circumstances without exceptions.
Mr. Berry. Pass the TICKET Act and ban speculative
ticketing.
Mr. Weingarden. Absolutely.
Senator Markey. Thank you. So I thank you so much for that.
Do you--as we move to disclosure requirements, do you
support prohibiting misleading resale advertising and use of
deceptive URLs?
Mr. Ritchie. Yes.
Mr. Wall. Yes.
Mr. Berry. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Weingarden. Yes.
Senator Markey. And last will be refunds. Do you support
providing consumers with a full refund when an event is
canceled?
Mr. Ritchie. Yes.
Mr. Wall. Yes.
Mr. Berry. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Weingarden. Of course, yes.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you.
Those answers were almost as good as the Patriots' defense
against Denver on Sunday. So sorry about that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. But I hear unanimous support for the key
provisions in the TICKET Act from the main stakeholders in the
ticketing industry, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to get this. It is a good start.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Senator Markey.
I want to go to a second round of questions before we close
this out and, Mr. Wall, I want to come to you, because in the
FTC's complaint executives at Ticketmaster knew that scalpers
were violating the ticket purchasing limits, and it seemed,
from what I have read, that it was a big inside joke that you
all knew this but you were allowing it to happen. Your C-suite
knew of this.
One of your executives even wrote in an e-mail that we have
stating that you, and I am quoting, ``turn a blind eye as a
matter of policy,'' end quote.
Now, you have emphatically denied that this conduct
needed--really had any sort of malfeasance. You all have denied
that but I want you to answer.
Why would you have to turn a blind eye, as your executive
put it, if there was no wrongdoing that was taking place?
Mr. Wall. I think that is taken very much out of context,
Senator, but let me just cut to the chase here. Our actions
speak----
Senator Blackburn. We will be happy to provide you the e-
mail.
Mr. Wall. I have the e-mail. I have seen it.
Senator Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Wall. But our actions----
Senator Blackburn. Not out of context.
Mr. Wall.--speak louder than anything else. We showed up.
We walked the walk. We actually put the money in. We improved
our defenses. Our bot defenses are second to none in the world.
Senator Blackburn. They are, obviously, not up to par. You
have got bots still getting through----
Mr. Wall. And we will----
Senator Blackburn.--and you have got scalpers that are
still scooping up these tickets. So we have got a disconnect
going on here somewhere.
Mr. Wall. And, Senator, we will always take the position
that so long as tickets are still going on this way then we are
not up to par. That is our position, too.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Well, let us accept that and let us
say there is work to be done. So do you accept any
responsibility when a fan is hit with a speculative or ghost
ticket?
Mr. Wall. Never, because we do not allow those on
Ticketmaster and have not for years.
Senator Blackburn. But it is happening.
Mr. Berry, how about your members?
Mr. Berry. I am sorry, Senator. Do our members support----
Senator Blackburn. Take any responsibility?
Mr. Berry. Absolutely, Senator. We serve tens of millions
of fans every year.
Senator Blackburn. OK. And, Mr. Wall, why can't
Ticketmaster not work with artists and do what Mr. Ritchie has
recommended where you would have tiered opportunities for fans?
Why can you not all make that happen?
Mr. Wall. So Ticketmaster never sets prices itself.
However, Live Nation and Ticketmaster do offer the whole--the
tiers, the platinums.
For example, we are--we stand alone. We are the only resale
site that will consistently--if Mr. Ritchie says he does not
want us to turn on resale on our Ticketmaster marketplace we
will not. If we do, we will pay him a portion of it.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Ritchie?
Mr. Ritchie. I do not--that is the first time--I have heard
very recently from Michael, the CEO, that we could do this cap
or not have resale.
I am like--he goes, yes, we have done it for other artists
for a while now for Pearl Jam, which is maybe why they are not
here making a stink today still. They might have a side deal
from what I have seen. I am, like, why do not----
Senator Blackburn. So it is not standard operating----
Mr. Ritchie. They are, like, you can have this deal, too. I
am, like, why have you not told us this? Oh, we are really bad
at advertising. I am, like, come on, that is bull--that is BS.
Senator Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Wall. There is nothing--there is nothing unusual about
these arrangements I am talking. Every artist that we promote
has the option to tell us----
Senator Blackburn. How can it not be unusual if the artists
do not know that this is an option?
Mr. Ritchie. Right. We have no idea.
Mr. Wall. You know, I would be happy to put in the record
the list of dozens of artists----
Senator Blackburn. Then you need to start supplying------
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Senator Blackburn. You need to--I would recommend that you
submit a list. Let me ask you to submit a list of artists who
are able to control their ticket sales, who are able to turn
off the secondary market, and who are able to work with you how
they want to tier these tickets.
Let me move on to----
Mr. Wall. Senator--if I may, Senator----
Senator Blackburn. Well, no, I am moving on.
Mr. Wall. Face value exchange. We are the only one that
offers artists the opportunity to do face value exchange.
Mr. Ritchie. How long?
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Wall, I have got another--I have got
another question for you.
Mr. Wall. Since we had invented it a few years ago.
Mr. Ritchie. I have never heard of it. I am very close with
a lot of people at Live Nation.
Senator Blackburn. OK. We are going to move on to another.
Senator Lujan referenced the letter that he and I sent to
you.
Mr. Wall. Yes.
Senator Blackburn. And I have got it right here. I will
submit it for the record without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
United States Senate
Washington, DC, September 30, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Joe Berchtold,
President & Chief Financial Officer,
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. Berchtold:
We write to express our grave concern over recent allegations
regarding the harm that Ticketmaster engaged in a ``bait-and-switch''
scheme to drive up ticket prices.\1\ When you testified before the
Senate Judiciary Committee in 2023, you told Congress ``We believe that
the artist-fan connection is the foundation of the live entertainment
industry, the source of nearly all commercial value, and the number one
thing that public policy should protect.'' \2\ Yet, according to a
lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission and seven states
attorneys general, Ticketmaster coordinated with ticket brokers
allowing them to obtain millions of dollars of tickets which they then
resold on the secondary market.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTC v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., Compl. for Perm. Inj., Monetary
Relief, Civil Penalties, and Other Relief at 6, No. 2:25-cv-08884 (C.D.
Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) [hereinafter FTC Compl.].
\2\ That's the Ticket: Promoting Competition and Protecting
Consumers in Live Ent. Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary,
118th Cong. 8 (2023) (statement of Joe Berchtold, President & CEO, Live
Nation Ent.) [hereinafter Senate Hearing].
\3\ FTC Compl. at 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster has allegedly turned a blind eye to bad actors
violating the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act for years, costing
fans billions of dollars in hard earned money. Instead of working with
trusted cybersecurity professionals and Congress to protect consumers
and stop ticket scalping, Ticketmaster went so far as to provide
technical support to help ``brokers'' exceed their purchasing limits to
buy up tickets.\4\ This decision allowed Ticketmaster to collect fees
at three different points in the purchasing process. Ticketmaster
collects fees when scalpers buy tickets on the primary market, they
collect more fees when those tickets are then sold on its own secondary
market, and they charge even more fees when fans eventually purchase
the resold tickets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 41.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This conduct was not isolated, nor was meaningful action taken to
bring this misconduct to a halt. When employees flagged the abuse
occurring on Ticketmaster's platform, their concerns were allegedly
ignored. Ticketmaster was not worried about the consumer. In fact,
reporting indicates that Ticketmaster was more concerned when brokers
complained about high-volume purchases that were blocked. A
Ticketmaster executive even wrote that they ``turn a blind eye as a
matter of policy'' to the violation of their own purchasing limits.\6\
LiveNation went so far as to ``offer technological support to brokers
through a software platform called TradeDesk, which enables brokers to
track and aggregate tickets purchased from multiple Ticketmaster
accounts into a single interface for simpler resale management.'' \7\
These actions stem from purely financial motives--if Ticketmaster had
enforced its ticket purchasing limits, the company stood to lose up to
$220 million in resale revenue per year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id at 9.
\7\ Id at 43.
\8\ Id at 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2023
following the Taylor Swift Ticketmaster meltdown, you repeatedly
assured the committee that Ticketmaster does everything in its power to
stop bots and scalpers.\9\ When pressed on the issue of cybersecurity
protections, you seemed dumbfounded and argued that LiveNation spent
over a billion dollars investing in site protections against bots.\10\
It is astounding that you would make such a claim while actively
colluding with scalpers and bad actors to extort the American public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Senate Hearing at 9 (statement of Joe Berchtold,
President & CEO, Live Nation Ent.).
\10\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's world-leading live entertainment industry is the center
of our culture, and consumers deserve the opportunity to see their
favorite band or cheer on their hometown sports team without competing
with bots and fraudsters. Instead of casting blame on any entity other
than Ticketmaster, we urge you to be forthright with Congress and the
American public about the extent of your complicity in allowing bots to
buy up and hoard massive amounts of tickets. With that in mind, please
respond to the following questions by October 14, 2025:
1. Live Nation's July 2025 comment in response to the DOJ-FTC RFI on
Anticompetitive Practices in Live Ticketing claims that
``Ticketmaster does not turn a blind eye'' \11\ to violations
of the BOTS Act. However, in an internal e-mail that copied
Live Nation leadership, a senior Ticketmaster executive wrote
that the companies ``turn a blind eye as a matter of policy''
to brokers' violations of posted ticket limits.\12\ Do you
stand by the statement that Live Nation, its Ticketmaster
subsidiary, or any other Live Nation-affiliated entity does not
``turn a blind eye'' to violations of the BOTS Act?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Live Nation Ent. Inc., Comment Letter on DOJ-FTC RFI on
Anticompetitive Practices in Live Ticketing 12 (July 7, 2025), https://
www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2025-0002-3566.
\12\ FTC Compl. at 9.
2. Did Live Nation or Ticketmaster ever purposefully relax
enforcement of ticket limits for certain buyers or brokers for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
financial gain?
3. In 2023, you told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the issues
in the ticketing industry are ``the direct result of the
industrial-scale scalping that goes on today'' \13\ and that
``[w]e are doing everything we can to fight the people who
attack our sales and steal tickets meant for real fans.'' \14\
By contrast, a recent investigation found that Ticketmaster
knew that just five brokers controlled thousands of
Ticketmaster accounts, possessing nearly a quarter of a million
tickets. Despite being aware of this, Ticketmaster continued to
offer and sell tickets to these very same brokers purchased by
circumventing Ticketmaster's enforcement measures. Do you still
stand by your statement that the company is doing ``everything
we can'' to fight ``industrial-scale scalping''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Senate Hearing at 9 (statement of Joe Berchtold, President &
CEO, Live Nation Ent.).
\14\ Senate Hearing at 57 (written statement of Joe Berchtold,
President & CEO, Live Nation Ent.).
4. You testified in 2023 that Ticketmaster invested millions in
anti-BOT technology every year and that the company is ``far
and away the leader in preventing fraud and getting tickets
into the hands of real fans.'' \15\ By contrast, the FTC's
investigation found that--far from preventing fraudulent use of
multiple accounts by brokers--the company considered
encouraging brokers to consolidate their duplicate accounts
into a single account so that they could continue accessing
their unlawfully purchased tickets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
a. Why is Ticketmaster investing millions of dollars annually in
anti-bot technology while you are actively helping scalpers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
circumvent it?
b. Given the FTC's findings, do you stand by your statement that
Ticketmaster is ``far and away the leader in preventing
fraud and getting tickets into the hands of real fans''?
5. The FTC asserts that brokers routinely exceeded posted ticket
limits and then resold through Ticketmaster's resale
marketplace.
a. Did Live Nation or Ticketmaster ever audit brokers to ensure
compliance with posted limits?
b. If any brokers were discovered to have exceeded limits, how
were they disciplined or excluded?
6. Do you support the MAIN Event Ticketing Act's reporting
requirement that obligates ticket sellers to notify the FTC of
any known circumvention incidents?
Sincerely,
Marsha Blackburn,
United States Senator.
Ben Ray Lujan,
United States Senator.
______
Live Nation
Beverly Hills, CA, October 17, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Senator Marsha Blackburn,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Senator Ben Ray Lujan,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: September 30, 2025, Letter Concerning FTC Allegations
Dear Senators Blackburn and Lujan:
I write in response to your letter dated September 30, 2025,
seeking information regarding certain allegations in the complaint
recently filed by the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') and seven
state attorneys general against Ticketmaster L.L.C. (``Ticketmaster'')
and its parent, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (``Live Nation'').\1\ I
want to assure you that Live Nation and Ticketmaster share your
commitment to supporting artists and fans and protecting the integrity
of the live entertainment industry. Unfortunately, the recently filed
lawsuit does not advance that shared objective. The FTC complaint
presents a distorted view of the facts and the law, specifically the
Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act. While we would prefer to work
with the FTC on addressing the real threats to the live event industry
instead of litigating these claims, we look forward to setting the
record straight here, and if necessary in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Complaint, FTC v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08884
(C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) (``Compl.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster is an industry leader in the fight against bots and
ticket scalping.\2\ Among its many initiatives, Ticketmaster has:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See That's the Ticket: Promoting Competition and Protecting
Consumers in Live Entertainment: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 118th Cong. 8-9, 57 (2023) (statement of Joe Berchtold,
President & CFO, Live Nation Entertainment) (``Senate Hr'g''); Live
Nation Ent. Inc., Comment Letter on DOJ-FTC RFI on Anticompetitive
Practices in Live Ticketing 2-3 (July 7, 2025) (``DOJ-FTC Comment'').
Invested more than $1 billion in ticketing technology,
including anti-bot technology, fraud detection, and ticket
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
security.
Invented rotating barcodes and digital ticketing to stop
screenshot resale.
Pioneered SafeTix and the smart queue digital waiting rooms
to get tickets in the hands of real fans rather than bad
actors.
Developed powerful new technologies designed to prevent
inauthentic account creation and provide for ongoing account
validation.
At the same time, Ticketmaster has recognized that private sector
action alone cannot outpace rapid advancements in ticket scalping
technology. Especially with AI, bad actors are only getting faster,
smarter, and harder to stop. We recently called attention to the
proliferation of ticket harvesting technologies in our comments in
response to President Trump's Executive Order on Combating Unfair
Practices in the Live Entertainment Market. And since this is an
industry-wide problem, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have repeatedly
called on Congress and regulators to act in this space by enhancing
legislative and regulatory protections. We have offered to lend our
extensive experience in combatting ticket scalpers, as well as evidence
from our various abuse-detection measures, to assist in formulating
policies and legislation, and building cases against bad actors. The
decision by the FTC to forgo that path in favor of litigation is
disappointing. Even more disappointing is the complaint's strained
attempt to portray Ticketmaster--the company that has indisputably done
more than anyone else in the industry to fight the bad actors--as
somehow complicit in their schemes.
In your letter, you expressed concerns about Ticketmaster's
ticketing practices based on allegations in the complaint. We address
each of the major contentions.
1. ``Colluding with Scalpers'': Your letter paraphrases the FTC as
alleging that ``Ticketmaster coordinated with ticket brokers allowing
them to obtain millions of dollars of tickets which they then resold on
the secondary market.'' Later you state Ticketmaster was ``actively
colluding with scalpers and bad actors to extort the American public.''
We fully understand how one could get this impression from the FTC's
complaint and press statements, but it is categorically false. No facts
alleged in the FTC complaint indicate that Ticketmaster has conspired
with ticket brokers to put tickets directly on resale markets. Live
Nation and Ticketmaster do not allow that. We have for many years
opposed the various ``direct-to-secondary'' schemes that others have
come up with. We believe that other than standard industry and venue
holds, all tickets to every concert should be made available to fans
through the primary ticketing channel. And we can assure you that today
every concert ticket that Ticketmaster is asked to distribute is sold
through onsales that are open to fans. None are secretly sold or
transferred to ticket brokers. To answer one of your questions
directly, no, neither Live Nation nor Ticketmaster ever ``purposefully
relax enforcement of ticket limits for certain buyers or brokers for
financial gain.''
The FTC complaint creates this misimpression by conflating
``conspiracy'' with a longstanding practice of primary ticketing
companies allowing ticket brokers to maintain multiple accounts. That
ticket brokers have been allowed to maintain multiple accounts is true;
calling that conspiracy is specious. The reality is that brokers have
had multiple accounts for a very long time--long before Ticketmaster
entered the secondary ticketing business in 2014, and well before
StubHub created the first successful secondary ticket marketplace in
the early 2000s. This practice harkens back to the days of physical
tickets, when ticket brokers would often have a number of employees or
others paid to stand in line and purchase concert tickets--a practice
that was generally accepted in the industry. Similarly, it was
generally accepted that a broker with multiple employees could have
each person hold an account and separately purchase tickets. All this
can be done legitimately under the rules of the primary ticketing
companies without having to resort to any unlawful behavior.
This is all apparently a surprise to the FTC, but as the agency
singularly charged with BOTS Act enforcement, it shouldn't be. Ticket
resale is dominated by broker inventory. StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid
Seats live and die by ticket brokers, getting 80 to 100 percent of
their inventory from brokers. And while there are lots of ways brokers
acquire inventory, many plainly illegal, using multiple accounts is one
method and not inherently illegal. To be sure, it has gotten out of
hand, especially since scalpers developed automated tools for creating
Ticketmaster accounts. Given the level of abuse we are now seeing, we
are no longer permitting this, as described below. But this is neither
conspiracy nor collusion as implied by the FTC lawsuit.
2. TradeDesk: Your letter also appears to accept the FTC's
characterization of an inventory management system, TradeDesk, as
technological support for unlawful ticket harvesting. This is plainly
false. TradeDesk is a suite of ticket management tools that streamline
a reseller's business operations, including pricing, inventory
distribution, and order fulfillment on various ticket marketplaces,
including but not limited to Ticketmaster. It is one of numerous
inventory management systems for ticket resellers, some from other
ticketing companies like Ticket Utils from StubHub\3\ and SkyBox from
Vivid Seats,\4\ and some from independent technology providers like
Automatiq.\5\ Brokers use these tools to manage all their tickets
across sports, concerts, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.ticketutils.com/ We understand StubHub is replacing
TicketUtils with a new product called Reach.
\4\ https://skybox.vividseats.com/welcome.html
\5\ https://automatiq.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TradeDesk has no functionality to buy primary tickets. Contrary to
the FTC's allegation, the TradeDesk platform does not in any way enable
``bots to buy up and hoard massive amounts of tickets.'' \6\ And while
TradeDesk--like every product in this class--has a syncing feature that
enables brokers to aggregate tickets from multiple accounts into a
single interface, that feature is simply a reflection that ticket
brokers have multiple accounts.\7\ If anything, the prevalence of tools
like this from multiple vendors should indicate that it is not
unlawful, nor a violation of our terms and conditions, to hold multiple
accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 9/30/2025 Ltr. at 2.
\7\ Furthermore, in Ticketmaster's case, the syncing feature is
used as a consumer-protective strategy to prevent fraudulent listings--
a serious problem on other resale platforms. TradeDesk provides an
efficient way for Ticketmaster to verify that a ticket is valid and in
the seller's possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have come to the conclusion that the reputational harm to
Ticketmaster from having to explain and defend TradeDesk exceeds its
value. While we believe this criticism is unfair, we are removing
TradeDesk's concerts ticket management functionality from the
market.\8\ As noted, there are many similar products, so TradeDesk
users will likely shift to them. But at least no one will again be able
to claim that because Ticketmaster has a resale management product, it
has no standing to advocate for resale market reforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The primary use of TradeDesk has been in sports, where many
teams use brokers for distribution and brokers need multiple accounts
to do what the teams ask of them. We intend to incorporate some
TradeDesk functionality into a new product to support this. It will not
support concert ticket resale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ``Turning a Blind Eye'': Live Nation and Ticketmaster do not
``turn a blind eye to bad actors violating the Better Online Ticket
Sales (BOTS) Act.'' \9\ This is a particularly frustrating allegation,
since we have invested more than a billion dollars in ticketing
technology, including anti-bot and fraud detection measures.\10\ These
investments are unmatched in the industry, and they have allowed Live
Nation and Ticketmaster to block an ever-increasing number of bots--
including some 8.7 billion bots in April 2025 alone.\11\ We are the
only company active in secondary ticketing that supported the BOTS Act
and encouraged its enforcement. We encouraged and supported President
Trump's Executive Order, have called on the FTC to more aggressively
pursue enforcement actions for BOTS Act violations, and also called on
Congress to broaden the BOTS Act, provide a private right of action,
ban speculative ticket listings, and more. Far from turning a blind
eye, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have been facing these issues head on
and diligently trying to address them. So, yes, in answer to your
question 4.b, we do stand by our previous statement that Ticketmaster
is ``far and away the leader in preventing fraud and getting tickets
into the hands of real fans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 9/30/2025 Ltr. at 1.
\10\ Live Nation and Ticketmaster do not publicly discuss the
methods and technologies used to enforce ticket limits and prevent
bots, but they have provided detailed information to the FTC.
\11\ See DOJ-FTC Comment 2, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FTC's blind-eye allegations are premised on the idea that
Ticketmaster cozies up to ticket brokers ``to collect fees at three
different points in the purchasing process.'' \12\ This makes no
economic sense. It would were Ticketmaster a resale-only marketplace
like StubHub and Vivid Seats, or even like SeatGeek, which makes most
of its money from secondary. But secondary ticketing accounts for
approximately 3 percent of Live Nation's revenue, and revenue from fees
on concert ticket resale is less than 2 percent of Live Nation's
revenue. Ticketmaster's market share in concert ticket resale is also
less than 20 percent, meaning that over 80 percent of the time a
concert ticket gets resold, some other marketplace collects any resale
fees. In this setting, Live Nation's incentives are plainly to favor
its relationships with artists and fans and Ticketmaster's primary
ticketing business, and not to jeopardize any of that for the benefit
of such a small portion of its operations. This is why Ticketmaster is
alone among secondary marketplaces in supporting resale reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 9/30/2025 Ltr. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against all that, the FTC complaint repeatedly highlights a
September 2018 internal e-mail among Ticketmaster and Live Nation
personnel to assert that the companies `` `turn a blind eye as a matter
of policy' to brokers' violations of posted ticket limits.'' \13\ That
is not what the e-mail says, nor what the author of the e-mail meant--
which the FTC failed to understand in part because they did not take
any depositions prior to filing its lawsuit. The author's point was
that while Ticketmaster has ``lots of anti-abuse tools that we use
actively,'' because of the company's ``policy of keeping a wall between
our primary and resale operations,'' the Ticketmaster resale operation
could not distinguish between properly and improperly sourced tickets.
In other words, the ``policy'' he was complaining about was the
``wall,'' which the company had erected for antitrust compliance
reasons, i.e., to guard against claims that it was using its primary
ticketing business to advantage its resale business. He was not saying
that Ticketmaster had a policy to let brokers circumvent ticket limits.
The FTC picked nine words out of context and changed the policy those
words addressed to create that misimpression.\14\ It also misleadingly
presented that seven-year-old e-mail as reflecting present-day
policy.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Compl. 15; see id. 82, 90-91.
\14\ The ``wall'' exists to this date, as in the ensuing years
unfounded complaints that Ticketmaster leverages its position in
primary ticketing for the benefit of its resale business have been
constant.
\15\ See Compl. 90-91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion occurred in the aftermath of the CBC stories about
TradeDesk in October 2018. At that time, Ticketmaster indeed reviewed
its policies toward brokers and resale generally. And of course, as the
FTC emphasizes, Ticketmaster assessed the economic implications of
various alternatives as anyone would. But what the FTC missed is that
Ticketmaster mainly focused on what would be effective in addressing
the root cause of brokers creating and using inauthentic Ticketmaster
accounts (irrespective of predicted impact on the business). Measures
that would simply cause brokers to avoid Ticketmaster and post on other
resale marketplaces instead were fundamentally illusory, and rejected
on that basis. On the other hand, Ticketmaster did not decide to do
nothing, as the FTC claims. To the contrary, it chose to expand its
abuse prevention and account verification measures, which it determined
would address root causes. Wave after wave of more sophisticated and
effective abuse prevention measures followed, counter to the FTC's
suggestion that Ticketmaster decided to do nothing at all.
4. The BOTS Act: We want to be very clear that Ticketmaster has
never tolerated, let alone facilitated, violations of the BOTS Act. We
do not believe the FTC has alleged a credible BOTS Act violation by
Ticketmaster, and we are confident it will not prove one.
As strong supporters of the BOTS Act, we have always been thankful
to Sen. Blackburn for championing it--and thankful to you both for
looking to enhance it through the MAIN Event Ticketing Act. We have
also had a clear understanding of its meaning. It was passed as a first
but important step in addressing the growing problem of ticket scalpers
using automated purchasing scripts called bots and other technological
exploits to buy substantial volumes of tickets from primary ticketing
companies like Ticketmaster. In short, it was passed to help us with
our work to fend off automated ticket harvesting by making it illegal
to circumvent the technological controls we use to enforce ticket
limits.
To that end, the BOTS Act makes it unlawful for any person ``to
circumvent a security measure, access control system, or other
technological control or measure'' that a primary ticketing company
uses ``to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits or to maintain
the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules.'' The act
of circumventing a technological control is illegal on its own. But
then a companion section makes it illegal ``to sell or offer to sell''
any ticket acquired through circumvention if the seller participated in
the circumvention, controlled the circumvention, or ``knew or should
have known that the event ticket was acquired'' through circumvention.
Here is a graphical representation of how the statute works.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
At its core, the BOTS Act targets three things a scalper might do:
it might circumvent our controls itself, it might get someone else to
circumvent our controls, and it will sell or at least try to sell the
tickets acquired through circumvention.
The FTC case is based on a fundamentally novel and expansionist
view of the BOTS Act that makes it illegal to circumvent ticket
limits--full stop--not just technological controls protecting ticket
limits. They have written ``technological controls or measures'' out of
the statute, deeming that unnecessary to finding circumvention. And
upon that foundation, they claim that whenever a secondary ticketing
marketplace sees that an individual or entity is posting more tickets
than the one-account ticket limit, the marketplace knows there has been
circumvention and therefore also violates the BOTS Act.
This will all be resolved in the litigation but suffice it to say
that we strongly disagree with the FTC's position. Ironically, just
days before the FTC staff revealed their new theory, we had urged
President Trump to support an expansion of the BOTS Act that was not
limited to circumvention of technological controls.\16\ For now,
however, that is undisputedly a limiting principle. The Act does not
give the ticket limit itself the power of Federal law. The countless
families, friends groups, church groups and others who have used
multiple accounts to seek tickets to see a favorite artist are not BOTS
Act violators. The scalpers who use technological exploits to buy
tickets are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See DOJ-FTC Comment at 11:
The key prohibition [of the BOTS Act] is structured so that it is
unlawful for any person to ``circumvent a security measure, access
control system, or other technological control or measure'' used ``to
enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits or to maintain the
integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules.'' That is a
rather indirect way to describe what bots do. It requires an inquiry
into whether there is ``circumvent[ion]'' of security measures, which
is not only unnecessary but invites arguments that defenses ticketing
companies put up against improper ticket harvesting do not qualify as
security measures to enforce ticket limits or ticket purchasing order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rules.
Live Nation has proposed an amendment to the BOTS Act that would
make circumvention of security measures subordinate to a broader
prohibition that makes it unlawful for ticket brokers ``to use or cause
to be used any software application that runs automated tasks over the
Internet to purchase event tickets from an Internet website or online
ticket marketplace.'' Since there is no downside from ``over-
deterring'' bots usage, the prohibition should be broadly worded.
5. Addressing the Proliferation of Broker Accounts: We of course
understand that the emotional force of the FTC's lawsuit comes from the
fact that some ticket brokers today simply have too many accounts. It
doesn't matter whether that's lawful or unlawful. What started as a
reasonable and acceptable level of behavior has been abused, and today
it is growing exponentially through digitally exploited means. It's
unfair to artists and fans and it is time to do something about it.
This is not an easy issue, because, as we have said before, the
practice in the industry for a very long time has been to let
professional resellers have multiple accounts and use them to try to
buy tickets. We have never thought it was our place to change
unilaterally the historical practices of the industry.\17\ Instead, we
have focused on stopping scalpers from creating fake accounts, and we
have developed ticket queueing processes that with increasing efficacy
favor fans who actually attend events over purchasers that transfer
tickets instead of attending. Favoring fans is also the idea behind our
preregistration product Artist Sign Up, and our Face Value Exchange
that allows artists to choose not to permit any for-profit transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Your Question 5 asks whether Ticketmaster audits brokers to
ensure compliance with posted limits. At an artist's request,
Ticketmaster conducts ``OTL Sweeps'' that are meant to determine if
tickets were acquired with bots or other unauthorized means. Brokers
are regularly caught in OTL sweeps, since normally bad brokers rather
than fans are acquiring tickets through improper means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To counter this increasingly unfair behavior, our policy will now
be to limit everyone and every entity, ticket brokers included, to only
one Ticketmaster account. This is not easy to do--and we know scalpers
will do everything in their power to undermine us. But fortunately, we
have new AI tools and identity verification technology that we think
makes this a reasonable aspiration. It also aligns with the FTC's
position that it is illegal for brokers to use more than one account to
buy tickets. We are therefore announcing today that we will no longer
let any broker maintain, buy tickets with, or post resale tickets with
more than one account. Excess accounts will be canceled in due course.
Nor will we allow any broker to post more tickets on our resale
marketplace than the posted ticket limit. To that end, we will require
every account that wishes to post tickets for resale on Ticketmaster
have a unique Taxpayer Identification Number (SSN or EID).
Experience teaches us that we can expect all sorts of exploits and
subterfuges to get around this policy. We will therefore be increasing
our efforts to prevent the creation of new, unauthorized accounts that
may be used to replace cancelled accounts. Ticketmaster already blocks
over 99 percent of the up to 25 million account sign-up attempts every
day because our technologies determine these are not real fans, and we
have stopped over 6 billion fake accounts so far this year. We will
also be deploying AI tools on existing accounts, identifying those
accounts most likely to be unauthorized accounts, requiring validation
that the accounts are held by fans, and canceling those that are not
validated. Yet it is, and always will be, a numbers game, with bad
actors throwing billions of account creation requests at us figuring
that if even a small fraction succeed, they can buy and scalp lots of
tickets. With our new AI models and identity verification tools, we
will make that harder.
6. Better Anti-Bot Measures: We are also improving our technologies
against bots. Ticketmaster already blocks over 200 million bots daily,
a five-fold increase from 2019. We continue to invest to improve our
ability to block bots on Ticketmaster, and in addition we will be
offering artists additional anti-bot tools for Artist Sign Ups for
major onsales and post-onsale ticket sweeps. Together we expect these
tools will increase the percentage of tickets going to real fans and
enable faster assessment and cancellation of bot-purchased tickets.
Ultimately, Ticketmaster's commitment is to do what it takes to
make sure that tickets meant for fans get to fans. That should not be
as hard as it is--but it is every bit as hard as one should expect when
ticket scalpers are making billions of dollars every year. Regardless,
to protect fans, artists, and event organizers, Ticketmaster will
continue to invest in abuse-prevention measures designed to detect and
prevent scalpers and other bad actors from interfering with sales or
acquiring tickets in violation of Ticketmaster's terms.
* * * * *
Live Nation and Ticketmaster once again reiterate their commitment
to supporting artists and fans while protecting the integrity of the
live entertainment industry. We respectfully believe this litigation is
misguided. Litigating this case will needlessly consume resources that
should be directed toward our shared objective of addressing the
problem of ticket scalping. Thus, while Live Nation and Ticketmaster
will vigorously defend against these allegations, we remain committed
to working with Congress and the FTC on real solutions as well.
As to the MAIN Event Ticketing Act, Live Nation and Ticketmaster
support it but would go further. We appreciate the addition of a BOTS
Act prohibition that covers the use of ticket buying software directly,
but as noted earlier we would not tie this to ``circumvention of an
access control system, security measure, or other technological control
or measure.'' It ought to be illegal to use any software application
that runs automated tasks over the Internet to purchase event tickets,
period. There should not be any qualifiers on how the software
automates ticket harvesting for live events.
We support, with some concerns, the proposal to require online
ticket issuers to report to the FTC any incidents of circumvention of
which the ticket issuer has actual knowledge. We have proactively
shared information with the FTC about suspected ticket harvesting
efforts on multiple occasions, but we have yet to see the FTC take
action on any of our tips. But the larger issue is that attempted
circumvention of technological controls is not an occasional,
noteworthy event. It happens constantly and at enormous scale, and we
are confident the FTC understands that. A reporting requirement is also
problematic because it is in the nature of this arms race that the
ticket company may know when it has won a battle by stopping a
circumvention attempt, but probably not when it has failed. To
illustrate, with the new technologies we have and the initiatives
described above, we may cancel up to 10 million fake accounts (out of
over 300 million accounts on the Ticketmaster Host system). It is very
hard for us to believe that 10 million fake accounts were created
without some kind of technological tool that, in our view, should be
unlawful. Our data scientists can make educated guesses about how some
of those accounts were created (e.g., using technology that creates
fake e-mails). But when do inferences lead to the ``actual knowledge''
that triggers the reporting requirement? This concerns us.
The obvious targets for BOTS Act enforcement actions are the
purveyors of ticket harvesting technology and their customers. The FTC
already knows who these people are. Furthermore, if the FTC genuinely
believes that secondary marketplaces violate the BOTS Act by allowing
brokers to post more tickets than the one-account ticket limit, all
secondary marketplaces are targets for enforcement. In all events, we
need more enforcement as opposed to simply more reporting.
We trust this letter answers your questions, and that the policy
changes we are making demonstrates our commitment to real change.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have further
questions.
Very truly yours,
Daniel M. Wall,
Executive Vice President,
Corporate and Regulatory Affairs,
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Senator Blackburn. And in it you said, and I am going to
quote, ``given the level of abuse you are now seeing you will
no longer permit brokers to use multiple accounts.''
So before now, you have allowed brokers to use multiple
accounts?
Mr. Wall. Yes.
Senator Blackburn. This gets to what I was talking to Mr.
Berry about--about verification of these accounts. So you have
allowed them to use these multiple accounts, but then you also
said in that letter that you were not turning a blind eye.
So were you all screwing up or were you lying?
Mr. Wall. Neither.
Senator Blackburn. Neither? OK.
Mr. Weingarden, what do you have to say about that?
Mr. Weingarden. Well, I mean, just a couple of things just
from what has been said, and I just want to make clear that the
TICKET Act as it is written does not outright ban spec
ticketing.
Senator Blackburn. Right.
Mr. Weingarden. So that definitely does need to get updated
or changed, and since we are all in agreement that would be
great.
But the other piece is that--sorry, I lost my train of
thought. What was the question again? I apologize.
Senator Blackburn. We were talking about he was saying
that--we were talking about the brokers, scalpers----
Mr. Ritchie. Multiple accounts.
Senator Blackburn.--and the multiple----
Mr. Weingarden. Oh, yes.
Senator Blackburn.--accounts that the brokers had, and they
had responded--we have the e-mail where one of the C Suites
said that they just turned a blind eye. It was standard
practice.
But in the response to Senator Lujan and I, they responded,
``Given the level of abuse you are now seeing''--like it was
just now beginning to happen--``you will no longer permit
brokers to use multiple accounts.''
And you had referenced the ghost tickets, speculative
tickets.
Mr. Weingarden. Right.
Senator Blackburn. So I was asking if you agreed with them?
Mr. Weingarden. I would definitely say that we experienced
that quite a bit. In fact, when we are looking at different--
trying to do some, like, scrubs to see how many scalpers are
potentially hitting a particular show, sometimes they are even
egregiously even utilizing the Boulder Theater's address as--
and we will see 20 to 30 different----
Senator Blackburn. And then when you find one of these
scalpers what do you do?
Mr. Weingarden. We try to cancel those orders and get rid
of them because when you are seeing----
Senator Blackburn. Cancel the orders. And you do it
before----
Mr. Weingarden.--when you are seeing 60--when you are
seeing 60 different orders--not tickets, 60 different orders
from the state of Indiana or something like that, come in for a
show at the Fox Theater in Boulder on a particular night, we
know that that is fraudulent activity.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Mr. Wall, I want to come back to you
on this because I think it gets--why did you allow the abuse of
the system for years? Before you said you were not turning a
blind eye and before you said you were going to clean it up.
Mr. Wall. What we allowed was brokers to have multiple
accounts, and that is because virtually all brokers have
multiple accounts and always have.
Senator Blackburn. So you did not do verification if these
were actual brokers or they were bots?
Mr. Wall. Oh, sure we did. Of course, we did.
Senator Blackburn. Well, you ended up with a whole lot of
bots, and then you said you are blocking a lot of the bots. So,
I mean, we have still got a difference.
Mr. Ritchie, you had a comment?
Mr. Ritchie. It is this simple. If I buy a ticket and I go
to the show I am their worst customer. If they allow these
multiple accounts to go on, that ticket resells and they make
more money. Boom.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Wall, I want to come back to you.
July of last year Ticketmaster filed a public comment in
response to the DOJ and the FTC request for information on
issues in the ticketing industry.
Now, in that public comment, you made some very interesting
arguments. Not sure I agree with all of this, but you made some
interesting arguments.
On page 11 of that comment you wrote that the BOTS Act, and
I am quoting, ``implicitly obligates ticketing platforms not to
turn a blind eye to patterns of behavior that indicate unlawful
ticketing harvesting,'' end quote.
Mr. Wall. Yes.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Now, I agree with that. You should
not turn a blind eye to that. This supports the fact that the
BOTS Act holds companies like Ticketmaster liable for selling
unlawfully purchased tickets.
Senator Moran and I wrote the BOTS Act, and the BOTS Act
was never meant to be Section 230 for ticketing platforms. So
why are you now taking the opposite position in ongoing
litigation?
Mr. Wall. We are not. There must be a misunderstanding,
because our interpretation of the BOTS Act is fundamentally the
interpretation that you and Senator Lujan put forward in your
amicus brief in the key investment group case.
Senator Blackburn. And we have another amicus brief coming
on the second one.
OK. Do you have--Senator Hickenlooper, do you have any
questions?
Senator Hickenlooper. I have myriad questions, but I will
restrain myself.
I wanted to--Mr. Ritchie, I wanted to ask, in your
experience--your direct experience--how much control does the
artist have in what the final price for an artist--or a
customer pays for that ticket relative to the add-ons?
Mr. Ritchie. The final price or setting the price of what
we would like?
Senator Hickenlooper. The final price.
Mr. Ritchie. The final price, well, not much. That includes
all the fees, the tacked on--how the buildings make their
money, everyone this, that, and the other. There is--you know,
they charge how much to print out a ticket at home, all these
little stuff that makes no sense, like, that everyone is up in
arms about.
We get a ton of say in what we want the tickets price to at
because that is where we make our money, and we make the
majority of that money, as I am sure Mr. Wall would be happy to
tell you. That is true.
But at the end of the day, no, we do not have any over all
those fees and everything that they tack on and all the stuff
that people are really upset about.
You know, if I say tickets are $49, whatever, fans are
usually, like, OK, that is great. You know, as artists, we want
to treat our fans right. They know that.
But then when they get to the end and they check out they
are, like, why is this thing $75?
Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
Mr. Ritchie. It was supposed to be $49. That is a huge
problem.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right, and there is no way, when you
are--you cannot restrict the contract. When you are signing a
contract with that promoter, they are unwilling or unable to
guarantee that they can, assuming--obviously, if we do a
Federal law that----
Mr. Ritchie. I mean, this is why I said subpoena some of
this stuff, because what I have heard people are getting
kickbacks from this. Sometimes it is--it is the managers or the
artists.
You know, there is a lot of people at fault here. You know,
I cannot--I would like to put it all on Ticketmaster and take--
they take the majority of these blows, no question, and Live
Nation.
But there are a lot of people there with their hands in
this cookie jar that it should not be in and that is why I hope
you subpoena a lot of these contracts and look for some of this
fraud because I bet there are some folks who go to jail.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am not going to judge anybody on
that evidence.
You know, since last year the FTC's all-in pricing went
into effect has that--have you guys seen a change in the market
since that? And maybe each one of you can describe a little bit
whether--what the change is.
And then also, if we made that a Federal law rather than
just a rule would that make a difference? So that is the two
questions. Have you seen a change and would it----
Mr. Ritchie. That is great. I think that is great for fans.
Just more transparency so they are not--they do not get sticker
shock when they go to checkout with all these hidden fees.
Senator Hickenlooper. OK.
Mr. Wall. It has been very important because contrary to
what a lot of people believe, ticketing companies cannot decide
how to--how to show these prices. It is the content owners who
sort of dictate this and so you have a problem of getting
everybody on board.
It is now--we have been pushing this for years--the system
is working. Some people were saying that there could be a lot
of problems. There have not been any problems. It turns out
this works just fine.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right. And do you think there is a
benefit to making a Federal law as opposed to just a FTC rule?
Mr. Wall. The only thing I would ask with that is the
industry has adjusted to the FTC rule so try to be as
consistent as possible. But otherwise, yes, absolutely.
Senator Hickenlooper. Taking what is working and just--
thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Codifying. Yes, codifying.
Senator Hickenlooper. I yield to the more experienced
person up here than myself.
Mr. Berry?
Mr. Berry. We absolutely support all-in total upfront
pricing. We have been advocating for years and I want to thank
the FTC for doing it, and I do agree it should be codified into
statute.
Senator Hickenlooper. OK. Mr. Weingarden?
Mr. Weingarden. Yes, the--we have been working. We, meaning
the National Independent Venue Association, has been a working
nation--throughout the states and we have gotten a lot of
states onboard for some time. And they have been--everybody, it
has been great and I think a Federal law with that would be
terrific.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right. I appreciate that. I do have
more questions but I am going to just put them in written form
for you all and let you go.
Senator Blackburn. Yes. We have had them here for a little
while.
Mr. Berry, I do have one more for you.
What percentage of the tickets that are sold on your
platform are from brokers?
Mr. Berry. I do not have a specific percentage, Senator.
But I can tell you this, if you are a broker or if you are a
nurse or if you are a season ticket holder, you are held to the
same rules.
You have to deliver the tickets as they have been ordered.
You will be penalized or thrown off platform if you are not.
The marketplace has to keep both sides of the equation honest.
Senator Blackburn. I would like for you to submit for the
record that number.
Mr. Berry. Absolutely.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Weingarden, do you agree with that?
Mr. Weingarden. I 100 percent do not agree with that. I
think that is very false, and we experience that--as I
mentioned in my testimony, we experience that on a day-to-day
basis and I guarantee you that all the 100 venues that I
represent for the Colorado Independent Venue Association and
elsewhere will say the same thing.
Senator Blackburn. Well, I want to draw this hearing to a
close. You all have been gracious and you have been patient
with our questions, and I am grateful for that.
Members of the Committee are going to have until February 4
to submit their questions for the record. As you have heard
many say, they have got more questions so you are going to get
questions for a response in writing. We will expect that
response back from you by February 18 and would appreciate it.
As you can see, this is something people are--they have
lost their patience with this price gouging and they want to
see some consistency, transparency, and maybe even a little bit
of equitable treatment for fans in this marketplace.
And at this point, I will conclude this hearing. As I say,
thank you all for your time.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Dan Wall
Question 1. In 2016, I introduced the Better Online Ticket Sales--
or ``BOTS''--Act, to end the practice of using ``ticket bots''--
automated software that purchases event tickets online far quicker than
a human could--monopolizing tickets for live events. My bill, which was
signed into law nearly 10 years ago, makes evading guardrails--
including through the use of ``bots''--that online ticket sellers have
put in place to enforce ticket purchasing limits a violation of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. Today, nearly a decade after enactment of
the BOTS Act, the FTC has taken a renewed interest in enforcing its
provisions, reflecting positive momentum toward a more competitive and
fairer live event ticketing marketplace. What steps have Live Nation
Entertainment and Ticketmaster taken to mitigate circumvention of anti-
bot guardrails on Live Nation and Ticketmaster platforms? In your view,
have these measures been effective in deterring the use of bots? What
additional steps could be taken (either by Ticketmaster or other
entities) to deter deployment of bots in the online ticketing industry?
Answer. Live Nation and Ticketmaster (collectively, ``we'') lead
the live event industry in efforts to prevent the harvesting and
scalping of event tickets at the expense of fans. Since 2010, we have
invested more than $1 billion in ticketing technology, including anti-
bot measures, fraud detection and ticket security. Ticketmaster has
also prioritized hiring and retaining personnel with deep abuse
prevention, engineering, and data science expertise drawn from a range
of industries, including major technology companies. We have also
repeatedly explained, including during the hearing, that the threat
posed by scalpers, including from their use of increasingly
sophisticated bots, continues to grow. This growth is driven by the
significant financial incentives for scalpers to harvest tickets and
resell them without restrictions on platforms that derive all or almost
all of their revenue from the resale market. The escalation is
reflected in the scale of automated attacks on our systems. For
example, Ticketmaster blocked 566 million bots per day on average in
the fourth quarter of 2025--an increase of over 3,600 percent from 2022
when Ticketmaster blocked 37 million bots per day. Further,
Ticketmaster rejects 99.7 percent of the up to 25 million account sign-
up attempts every day, based on technological determinations that these
are not from real fans. These figures reflect both the sustained growth
in abusive activity and a systematic, technology driven response
designed to detect, block, and deter bad actors at scale.
Given these evolving threats, Ticketmaster has built a multi
layered, lifecycle based defense system designed to deter scalpers and
bots at every stage of the ticketing process, from network level
attacks to resale activity. At the outermost layer, we block automated
attacks at scale. The 3,600 percent increase of bots blocked per day
since just 2022 reflects the growing financial incentives in the resale
market and the corresponding escalation in bot activity. The next layer
focuses on preventing fraudulent access to the marketplace where we
reject, as previously noted, 99.7 percent of up to 25 million daily
account sign up attempts. We also conduct ongoing sweeps of atypical
activity and shut down high risk accounts, including 2.5 million such
accounts in the last six months alone. During high demand onsales, we
deploy structured access controls designed to prioritize trusted
participation by fans and manage traffic at scale, including smart
queue technology and artist directed distribution tools. In the
instances where purchases made violate event terms, including purchase
limits, we cancel those transactions to return tickets to inventory for
fans. We also apply layered controls to the resale marketplace to limit
large scale commercial reselling. Every seller is required to maintain
a single account verified through tax identification, speculative
listings are banned, and all resale tickets are authenticated before
being listed. Taken together, these measures reflect a coordinated and
technology driven strategy that targets abusive acquisition, fraudulent
account creation, policy violations, and resale exploitation in a
structured and continuous manner rather than through isolated controls.
We also address the threat of abuse by empowering artists to have
more control of ticket resale on Ticketmaster's platform, including
through the Face Value Exchange program. This service, available to any
artist, limits the ability for tickets sold on Ticketmaster in the
primary market to be resold on Ticketmaster for a value higher than
what the first purchaser paid. We have seen this significantly reduce
professional resale activity for artists that choose to use this
service. While Face Value Exchange enables artists to control resale on
Ticketmaster, it cannot stop resale on other platforms, where the
majority of resale transactions occur. For this reason, we have
advocated for legislation, including the MAIN Event Act, that would ban
speculative ticketing, give artists full control over resale across
platforms, and impose price caps on resale tickets to address the
fundamental economic incentive for ticket harvesting and scalping. We
have worked with a broad industry coalition to develop these proposals,
which are described in more detail at Fairticketing.com.
Ticketmaster measures the effectiveness of its abuse prevention
systems across several core indicators, including bot traffic blocked,
fraudulent account creation prevented, and high risk accounts removed.
On each of these metrics, we have seen both significant scale and
continuous improvement. For example, as previously noted the number of
bots blocked has increased by more than 3,600 percent between 2022 and
2025, reflecting both the growth in automated attacks and the expansion
of our detection capabilities. These systems are designed to operate at
scale and adapt as tactics evolve. At the same time, no large ecommerce
platform can eliminate abuse entirely. The volume of bots we block
underscores the reality that ticketing remains a high incentive target.
As long as tickets can be resold at substantial markups on platforms
that do not honor artist resale restrictions or pricing caps, bad
actors will continue to invest in tools designed to bypass safeguards.
Our approach is to continuously strengthen defenses across account
creation, onsale access, order monitoring, and resale controls in order
to reduce the success rate and profitability of that activity.
Problems such as bots and speculative ticketing persist because
resale-centric platforms like StubHub, SeatGeek, and Vivid Seats allow
brokers to resell tickets on average at twice the face value and earn a
25-40 percent commission from the buyer on each transaction. As long as
these economic incentives exist, platforms like Ticketmaster will be
under siege from new and improved scalper technology to exploit these
opportunities. As we explained in our comment to President Trump's
Executive Order on Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment
Market, we are increasingly of the view that the only thing that will
address this industry wide problem is legislative reform. Legislation
that empowers artists and reforms resale markets to reduce or eliminate
the economic incentives will be the best deterrence against the use of
bots.
The most effective legislative measures would be to amend the BOTS
Act so that it covers the broader range of ticket harvesting and
scalping tactics. Indeed, we have proposed an amendment to the BOTS Act
to prohibit bad actors ``to use or cause to be used any software
application that runs automated tasks over the Internet to purchase
event tickets from an Internet website or online ticket marketplace.''
This would allow for BOTS Act claims against scalpers without showing a
technological circumvention as the law currently requires. We also
encourage Congress to pass legislation that codifies artist's rights to
impose restrictions on resale and cap resale prices. This would help
ensure that the ways Ticketmaster already tries to honor the
preferences of artists are also consistently honored by all
participants in the resale market.
Question 2. The live event ticketing industry has seen an influx of
newer entrants with unique offerings or services that seek to
differentiate their platforms from competitors. As in every industry,
it is incumbent upon the FTC to make certain that consumers seeking to
benefit from the unique offerings of the plethora of ticket sellers are
able to do so freely. Given your organization's role as a leader in the
primary and secondary ticket sales markets, how do Live Nation and
Ticketmaster view their responsibilities in stewarding this significant
market share, particularly with respect to promoting competition and
consumer protection?
Answer. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are continuously evolving and
enhancing practices to keep up with the increasingly competitive
ticketing marketplace.
We compete for venue clients who are free to choose among ticketing
providers based on price, technology, service, and overall value. In
today's competitive bidding environment, venue operators routinely
solicit and evaluate multiple proposals, and contracts are awarded
based on a range of factors. The most important of those factors is
which platform can most effectively sell tickets for events. Venues and
promoters depend on strong ticket sales to drive attendance, revenue,
and the overall success of their events. That same capability directly
benefits fans, because a platform that can manage high demand, scale
securely, and convert interest into completed transactions ensures that
more fans are able to successfully purchase tickets. Our continued
investment in product development, security, and service reflects the
reality that we must compete on performance and results, constantly
improving our ability to help our partners sell tickets efficiently and
reliably at scale.
Consumer protection is foundational to how we operate our
marketplace. Our goal is to deliver a secure, transparent, and fair
ticket buying experience, from the moment a fan joins an onsale to the
moment they enter the venue.
To protect ticket integrity, we pioneered digital ticketing with
rotating barcodes through SafeTix and have invested in evolving anti
bot technology, fraud detection, and ticket security systems. To
promote fair access during high demand onsales, we developed tools such
as Verified Fan and smart queue technology to manage traffic at scale
and prioritize trusted participation. To limit abusive resale, we built
the artist controlled Face Value Exchange, banned speculative listings,
and require sellers to maintain a single verified account tied to tax
identification. And to ensure clarity for consumers, we support upfront
pricing and clear disclosures so fans understand the full cost of a
ticket before purchase.
Together, these efforts are designed to create a secure,
transparent, and more equitable ticket buying experience for fans.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Dan Wall
Question 1. On July 7, 2025, you submitted a public comment in
response to the Department of Justice and FTC's request for information
on unfair and anticompetitive practices in live ticketing. On page 11
of that comment, you said the BOTS Act ``implicitly. . .obligates
ticketing platforms not to turn a blind eye to patterns of behavior
that indicate unlawful ticket harvesting.'' As I said in the hearing,
this supports a reading of the BOTS Act that holds companies like
Ticketmaster liable for selling unlawfully purchased tickets. I asked
you why you are now taking the opposite position in the ongoing FTC
litigation, and you indicated that you had not changed your position.
Do you believe that Ticketmaster can be held accountable under the BOTS
Act for turning a blind eye to patterns of behavior that indicate
unlawful ticket harvesting as you argued on July 7, 2025, or do you
stand by the position you now hold in the ongoing litigation?
Answer. Ticketmaster's position has been consistent for years: we
have long advocated for vigorous enforcement of the BOTS Act, taken
steps to prevent ticket purchase abuse, and shared information with the
FTC to support BOTS Act enforcement. We believe all ticketing platforms
should do the same. As you rightly explained in your recent amicus
brief filed in the Key Investment Group litigation, the BOTS Act
prohibits `` `circumvent[ion]' of ticket issuers' means of enforcing
`posted event ticket purchasing limits' and `purchasing order rules.'
'' This language does not expressly require ticket issuers to deploy
specific bot-prevention measures, while at the same time, it is not
Section 230 for the ticketing industry. Rather, the BOTS Act assumes
ticket issuers will post ticket limits and deploy technical abuse
prevention measures because without platform technological controls to
prevent scalpers from exceeding posted ticket purchase limits, there
can be no BOTS Act enforcement. In turn, Ticketmaster, as a ticket
issuer, depends on others in the ticketing industry, particularly
resale-focused platforms and brokers, to not facilitate or ignore
efforts to harvest and scalp tickets. The arms race to prevent ticket
scalping is challenging enough without sophisticated market
participants emboldening and enabling scalpers to engage in abusive
practices that hurt fans.
Ticketmaster is unquestionably doing its part to prevent abuse and
facilitate BOTS Act enforcement. Ticketmaster systematically looks for
indications of unlawful ticket harvesting and cancels tickets it
concludes were purchased improperly. As set out in more detail in
response to Senator Moran's questions above, Live Nation and
Ticketmaster lead the industry in the development and deployment of
abuse prevention measures to detect and prevent ticket harvesting and
scalping, including SafeTix, smart queues, and artist controls such as
Face Value Exchange. Given the ways that scalpers have continued to
evolve their tactics, we have worked closely with you and other
policymakers in Congress and the states to develop policy solutions,
including amendments to the BOTS Act, and the MAIN Event Ticketing Act.
We also have and will continue to work closely with Federal and state
law enforcement and regulators to communicate the evolving threats
posed by ticket harvesters and scalpers.
Unfortunately, we are far from confident that other market
participants are doing their part to address these challenges. In fact,
there is little evidence that other resale platforms make abuse
prevention efforts comparable to Ticketmaster and abundant evidence
that they do not. Companies that are resale-focused and derive the
majority of their revenue from professional reselling are simply not
financially incentivized to adopt prevention measures like those used
by Ticketmaster or to work with Ticketmaster to identify and curb
suspected abuse. We appreciate that you invited other participants in
the ticketing industry to the hearing and hope that you also ask them
how they can support BOTS Act enforcement. In turn, we hope these
resale-focused organizations will respond by agreeing to closer
cooperation with Congress and with ticket issuers, like Ticketmaster,
to address the industrywide challenges of ticket harvesting and
scalping. We look forward to continuing those efforts with your office.
Question 2. I asked you about complaints I hear that Live Nation
and Ticketmaster doesn't work with artists to give them more control
over their shows. You argued that Ticketmaster is the only resale site
to listen to artists' desires regarding their tickets. Please provide a
list of artists who are able to control their ticket sales through your
platform.
Answer. Every artist who sells tickets on Ticketmaster controls how
their tickets are sold. Artists and their teams decide pricing, onsale
timing, presales, ticket limits, and whether tickets can be transferred
or resold. Ticketmaster provides the tools, artists and their teams
choose how to use them.
Ticketmaster pioneered Face Value Exchange, an artist-enabled
program that helps protect fans from excessive resale markups by
allowing ticket holders who can't attend to resell their tickets at the
original face value set by the artist, so tickets go back to real fans
rather than scalpers.
The only limitation on artist control occurs in states such as New
York, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia and Utah, where laws
restrict the ability to limit ticket transfer, making it harder for
artists to prevent predatory resale and price inflation. Outside of
those states, artists can fully choose protections like restricted
transfer and Face Value Exchange
Many artists across multiple genres have chosen to use these fan-
protective tools on Ticketmaster, including major global tours, benefit
concerts, and emerging artists.
Recent artists using Face Value Exchange or transfer controls
include:
2026:
1. Noah Kahan
2. Sweet Relief Musicians Fund
3. Kid Rock
4. Andrew McMahon
5. Tame Impala
6. Hilary Duff
7. Ethel Cain
2025:
1. Sturgill Simpson
2. Beth Gibbons
3. Patti Smith
4. Tyler Childers
5. Neil Young
6. Hozier
7. Jack's Mannequin
8. Jonas Brothers (one-off)
9. Rufus Du Sol (benefit show)
10. Blink 182 (benefit show)
11. Billy Strings
12. Ethel Cain
13. Gracie Abrams (benefit show)
14. The Saw Doctors
15. Sleep Token
16. Lisa (of BLACKPINK)
17. Mumford & Sons (one-off)
18. Janie's Fund
19. Billie Eilish
20. Max McNown
21. Yusuf/Cat Stevens book tour
22. Dermot Kennedy
23. Daniel Caesar (Toronto Underplay)
24. Fujii Kaze
25. [SPIRITBOX]
26. Colter Wall
27. Kid Cudi
28. Babymetal (Los Angeles underplay)
29. Brandi Carlile (album listening party)
30. Khruangbin
31. Olivia Dean
32. Hayley Williams
33. Hilary Duff
34. Pinkpanthress
35. Ms. Lauryn Hill
36. Freya Skye
37. Gorillaz
38. Foo Fighters
39. Fred Again
40. Louis Tomlinson
41. Brandi Carlisle
42. Khruangbin
43. Noah Kahan
2024:
1. Neil Young
2. Sleep Token
3. Robert Plant x Alison Krauss
4. Hozier
5. Cigarettes After Sex
6. Noah Kahan
7. Foo Fighters
8. Pearl Jam
9. Wilco
10. PJ Harvey
11. Ben Howard
12. Indigo Girls x Amos Lee
13. Luke Combs
14. Norah Jones
15. Something Corporate
16. Billie Eilish
17. Sturgill Simpson
18. Fred again..
19. Frank Black
20. Tyler Childers
21. Metallica (benefit show)
22. Spiritbox
23. Cage The Elephant
24. Farm Aid
25. Sweet Relief Benefit Concert
2023:
1. Maggie Rogers
2. The Cure
3. Mitski
4. Foo Fighters
5. Tyler Childers
6. U2
7. Hozier
8. Bleachers
9. Noah Kahan
10. [Atlantis Venue Opening--Multiple Artists]
11. Ben Howard
12. Eddie Vedder
13. Indigo Girls x Amos Lee
14. Neil Young
15. Pearl Jam
16. Something Corporate
17. Queen + Adam Lambert
18. Jack White
19. Oliver Anthony (used FVE but had transfer on, added FVE after tix
already onsale)
20. Walmart Heroes & Headliners
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Dan Wall
FIFA 2026 World Cup. The FTC's Junk Fees Rule and the TICKET Act
both mandate 'all-in pricing' to ensure fans aren't blindsided at
checkout. However, recent reports indicate that for the 2026 World Cup,
mandatory parking fees--a functional necessity for access--are being
siloed into a separate, opaque structure. Reported parking fees of over
$250 per parking pass may even exceed the cost to attend a 2026 World
Cup match altogether.
Question 1. For tickets sold to consumers for the upcoming FIFA
2026 World Cup, how will your platform ensure fans are not surprised by
a separate, opaque fee structure for a necessity to access the venue
where a World Cup match is held?
Answer. Ticketmaster is not the primary ticketing provider for the
FIFA World Cup 2026, and we do not have visibility into how FIFA or its
ticketing partners price tickets, parking, or other ancillary items for
this event.
If and when FIFA World Cup tickets or FIFA-related event tickets
are sold or resold on Ticketmaster, they will be subject to the same
requirements that apply across our platform. Ticketmaster strictly
complies with the FTC's Fees Rule and all applicable state laws
governing all-in pricing. Our platform is designed to display the full
price of any item sold through Ticketmaster upfront, so fans understand
the total cost without unexpected charges added later.
We also want to note that Ticketmaster has not begun offering
resale for this event because tickets have not yet been delivered and
seat locations have not been confirmed. Until that occurs, listings
appearing on other sites may be speculative and cannot guarantee
access. We have been advising fans that the safest approach is to wait
for official ticket delivery before making a purchase.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Brian Berry
Question 1. In 2016, I introduced the Better Online Ticket Sales--
or ``BOTS''--Act, to end the practice of using ``ticket bots''--
automated software that purchases event tickets online far quicker than
a human could--monopolizing tickets for live events. My bill, which was
signed into law nearly 10 years ago, makes evading guardrails--
including through the use of ``bots''--that online ticket sellers have
put in place to enforce ticket purchasing limits a violation of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. Today, nearly a decade after enactment of
the BOTS Act, the FTC has taken a renewed interest in enforcing its
provisions, reflecting positive momentum toward a more competitive and
fairer live event ticketing marketplace. How has the BOTS Act impacted
the live event ticketing marketplace from the perspective of consumers?
From the perspective of ticket sellers? In practice, how have the
provisions of the BOTS Act impacted original sellers of tickets in the
primary ticket market versus resellers of tickets in the secondary
market?
Answer. We are pleased Congress passed the BOTS Act, and pleased
that the FTC is investigating and suing several alleged violators,
including Ticketmaster. The FTC should keep enforcing the BOTS Act, and
we agree that the Act could benefit from updates to improve
enforcement. Strong enforcement is essential to protecting fans and
restoring trust in the ticket-buying experience.
From a consumer perspective, the BOTS Act establishes an important
baseline: using automated software script to cut in line to buy tickets
and bypass posted ticket purchase limits is illegal. That matters
because humans should be competing for a fair shot at tickets on a
level playing field. However, consumers may sometimes feel like the
system is as complicated as ever and rigged against them when they are
led to believe illegal bot users scooped up all the tickets.
Importantly, illegal bots are not the sole source for ticket scarcity,
as Live Nation has reported most of its events (98 percent) do not sell
out and therefore tickets remain for purchase, regardless of bots, when
the show begins. Further, Ticketmaster is known to hold back large
swaths of tickets from the public on-sale and slowly drip new tickets
for sale over time. When this happens, the so-called bot is actually
Ticketmaster making tickets difficult to access, not illegal bot users.
Although legitimate resale marketplaces prohibit and penalize the
use of illegally obtained tickets, including those purchased with
illegal bots, it is impossible for resale marketplaces to know how
resellers initially obtained tickets. Nevertheless, we're confident
that the BOTS Act has helped deter less reputable actors, and recent
enforcement actions send an important signal that violations carry real
consequences.
In practice, the BOTS Act impacts only the primary ticket market
because that is where illegal bot users use their banned software
script to jump ahead of ticket buyers waiting in line and scoop up
tickets before real humans can. Unfortunately for fans, and according
to the FTC, the largest primary ticketing company, Ticketmaster, has
turned a blind eye to bots. Secondary market resale marketplaces, on
the other hand, do not operate virtual ticket queues or impose purchase
limits. Our members' experience in hosting resale platforms is that the
secondary resale market does not suffer bot attacks given they do not
control the initial on-sale throttling of access to tickets. As a
result, fans can list and purchase tickets at any time on any day and
are not subjected to long queues or complicated on-sales. We believe
that stronger, more frequent enforcement of the BOTS Act, will help
stem the tide of bots.
Question 2. In your view, and with the benefit of nearly a decade
of hindsight, how should this Committee view its role in overseeing
enforcement of the BOTS Act and providing the FTC and other Federal and
state agencies with the authorities and resources needed to foster a
competitive and fair live event ticketing marketplace?
Answer. Our member marketplaces serve tens of millions of happy
fans every year, providing safe, guaranteed ticket transactions, real
competition in pricing and service, and trusted options when it comes
to buying and selling tickets. We are proud that our online
marketplaces brought resale off street corners--where fraud and
counterfeits were rampant--and into the world of transparent,
protected, tax-paying e-commerce.
There is one thing nearly everyone agrees on: the entire live event
ecosystem, including and especially the live event ticketing segment,
should work better for fans. This is where the Committee can help to
foster a competitive and fair live event ticketing market. Too often,
for reasons that begin long before a ticket is put on sale, fans feel
confused, frustrated, or shut out entirely. But access to tickets is
just the result of a long chain of events, relationships, and industry
power plays and distortions that have been the subject of deep
investigation. Therefore, we caution the Subcommittee to avoid
defaulting to convenient scapegoats rather than digging deeper into the
facts.
Blaming ticket resale for the lion's share of problems in ticketing
misses the mark. Significant fan harm originates at the source in the
currently rigged system designed and dominated by a single, vertically
integrated monopoly that maintains a powerful grip over artist
management, event promotion, venue operations, and ticketing.
Problems in ticketing have been repeatedly studied over the last
two decades by lawmakers (including on this Committee), industry,
consumer advocates, and regulators. This process reached several
important conclusions about how to improve the fan experience and, as a
result:
a. The FTC now requires all-in, upfront pricing so fans are not
confused or misled about the price of tickets they are
purchasing. This is a big win for consumers and the consistency
required of both primary and secondary ticket sellers is
welcome by industry.
b. The Department of Justice has sued Live Nation/Ticketmaster
repeatedly, agreed to several consent decrees to change how
Live Nation/Ticketmaster operates, and soon an antitrust trial
will begin where the DOJ is joined by a bipartisan group of 40
state attorneys general in a case that may result in the
breaking up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The Department of
Justice should stay on the case until the job is done.
c. Congress passed the BOTS Act, and the FTC is investigating and
suing several alleged violators, including Ticketmaster. The
FTC should keep enforcing the BOTS Act, and we agree that the
Act could benefit from updates to improve enforcement.
d. In part, thanks to this Committee's years of leadership, The
House of Representatives passed the overwhelmingly bipartisan
TICKET Act to address refund protection, deceptive websites,
and speculative ticket offers. We urge the Committee to push
the Senate to send the TICKET Act to the President's desk. That
would be a monumentally important accomplishment.
The TICKET Act will not safeguard against the foreclosure of
competition in ticketing, but it will provide important and meaningful
new consumer protections.
I should also note that enactment of the TICKET Act will require
significant investment and change across the industry, including from
our member companies. We accept that because it will improve the market
in a way that benefits fans.
As mentioned, our platforms support stronger fan protections that
include more transparency, less deception, and more enforcement against
fraud and abuse. What we do not support are policies that foreclose
competition, restrict legitimate resale, eliminate consumer choice, and
further entrench monopolistic control under the false banner of reform.
Question 3. Existing laws that seek to police unfair, deceptive,
and anticompetitive practices in the live event ticketing industry--
including the BOTS Act--provide for a certain threshold of interagency
and intergovernmental coordination. The BOTS Act, for example, provides
for enforcement by the FTC and coordination with state attorneys
general, who may bring civil action in Federal court on the basis of
the BOTS Act, in consultation with the FTC. In practice--and in other
legislative proposals--enforcement and coordination include the
Department of Justice and other relevant state and local law
enforcement agencies. What are the advantages of the interagency and
intergovernmental coordination provided for by the BOTS Act and Federal
regulations and guidance promulgated since its enactment to preventing
unfair and deceptive conduct in the live event ticketing marketplace?
Have you or your members observed obstacles to this sort of
coordination and collaboration? Do you feel that consumers and industry
have sufficient opportunities to weigh in, where needed?
Answer. It has been our members' experience that consumers and
industry have sufficient opportunities to weigh in with relevant
authorities and policy makers where and as needed, including by
providing lawmaker offices with information, contacting Federal and/or
state agencies, etc.
We believe there are strong advantages with interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on ticketing-related matters, in
particular with respect to the prevention of unfair and deceptive
conduct as for the enforcement of laws and rules such as the Federal
BOTS Act.
The BOTS Act created a meaningful enforcement framework but that
implementation gaps remain. We believe the Act should be enforced
rigorously, and that primary ticketing platforms (not just those that
enjoy the size and resources of Ticketmaster) should be able to
innovate and work with enforcement agencies as partners in the
investigation and prosecution of purveyors and users of illegal bots.
Our member companies seek an enforcement environment in which cutting-
edge technologies can be unleashed and the eradication of bots achieved
via technological innovation and deepened partnership with enforcement
authorities.
Question 4. The live event ticketing industry has seen an influx of
newer entrants with unique offerings or services that seek to
differentiate their platforms from competitors. As in every industry,
it is incumbent upon the FTC to make certain that consumers seeking to
benefit from the unique offerings of the plethora of ticket sellers are
able to do so freely. Does the FTC have the authorities and resources
required to support a competitive live event ticketing ecosystem? What
should this Committee, the FTC, and other public and private
stakeholders do to cultivate competition in the ticket sale and resale
marketplace?
Answer. Free markets and fierce competition--not consolidation--is
what ultimately lowers costs, drives innovation, and improves the fan
experience. Some members of the Ticket Policy Forum are seeking to
challenge the status quo in live event ticketing by working directly
with teams, venues, and promoters to give fans better access, better
technology, more choices and superior user experiences. But real
progress has been tough. As I testified on January 28th, the dominant
industry player controls around 80 percent or more of major concert
venue ticketing and, as the Justice Department antitrust complaint
details, illegally acts to limit fair competition.
Therefore, our recommendation is that this Committee not risk
inadvertently tipping the scales of competition further in favor of the
dominant monopolist. Instead, we recommend policies and rules that
strengthen consumer protections in an equitable manner similar to how
the FTC's recent all-in price transparency rules applies to all ticket
sellers (and not just resale platforms).
With respect to policies that will both not harm competition yet
help consumers, the Committee should again focus on the TICKET Act. The
TICKET Act addresses refund protection, deceptive websites, and
speculative ticket offers. We urge the Committee to push the Senate to
send the TICKET Act to the President's desk.
Finally, the Department of Justice has sued Live Nation/
Ticketmaster and will hopefully soon commence an antitrust trial where
the DOJ, joined by a bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general
will potentially seek far reaching remedies. The Department of Justice
should stay on the case until the job is done. A break up of Live
Nation and Ticketmaster could remove critical structural and behavioral
distortions in ticketing that have resulted in a vertically integrated
monopolist that bullies and harms artists, venues, fans, and competing
ticketing companies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Brian Berry
Question 1. Brokers are very prevalent sellers on resale platforms,
and they often markup those tickets at outrageous rates. It is
important to understand how prevalent brokers are on your members'
platforms and how important they are to their business models. Please
provide the percentage of tickets on each of the following platforms
that are listed by brokers.
Answer. TPF does not have visibility into the identity of sellers
or the percentage of tickets sold by any particular category of seller
on member marketplaces and therefore cannot provide that figure.
Importantly, our member marketplaces apply the same rules and
standards to all sellers whether a professional reseller, season ticket
holder, venue, promoter, team, or an individual fan. All sellers are
subject to the same requirements regarding lawful acquisition, ticket
delivery, and marketplace conduct.
It is also important to not presume tickets offered to highly
popular events are only offered by professional sellers. For example,
one member (StubHub) publicly commented that for Taylor Swift's 2023
North American Eras Tour, more than 80 percent of ticket sellers were
first-time sellers. While some of these first-time sellers could have
been first-time professional sellers, being new to StubHub's
marketplace suggests to us that they were likely fan ticketholders
looking to sell their tickets at a price of their choosing on a
platform that they trust to be safe and secure.
Marketplace integrity is rooted in accountability on both sides of
the transaction. Sellers must deliver valid tickets as promised or face
financial penalties and removal from the platform.
Buyers must transact through secure accounts and payment systems.
These platforms back transactions with fan guarantees, refund
protections, ticket verification, and replacement options when
available. Seller and buyer identities are kept confidential to protect
user safety and reduce fraud risks associated with off-platform
transactions.
It is unfortunate that some try to mislead lawmakers and others
about professional ticket sellers, creating a false narrative that they
do not play a valuable role in the industry and ecosystem or painting a
simplistic picture of bad guys versus good guys. Professional ticket
sellers are longstanding participants in the live events ecosystem and
should not be presumed to be unlawful actors. Like any industry, there
are bad actors, but the vast majority of professional sellers operate
lawfully and depend on maintaining trust to sustain their businesses.
In many cases, they enter into legitimate business arrangements with
venues, teams, producers, and promoters, purchasing and assuming ticket
inventory and financial risk well before events occur. This risk
transfer can help stabilize revenue for event organizers and provide
liquidity in markets with fluctuating demand. To put it simply, these
industry participants are early investors in helping live events
succeed and leave no seat empty.
TPF supports strong enforcement against unlawful conduct, including
violations of the BOTS Act. The focus should remain on those who break
the law, not on lawful participants in the resale marketplace.
At their core, our member platforms provide secure, transparent
marketplaces that expand consumer choice, flexibility, and access when
primary market inventory is limited or unavailable.
Question 2. Resale platforms clearly have a responsibility here.
Fans and artists alike want to know that your platforms take the issue
of bad actors listing tickets on your platforms seriously. What
measures do your members have in place to identify and hold accountable
bad actors that list tickets on their platforms?
Answer. Based on what TPF knows, all sellers on marketplaces are
held to the same high standard of professional conduct expected of
those who offer tickets for sale to consumers.
Marketplaces operate such that both sides of the seller and buyer
equation are held accountable. The seller of tickets must deliver
legitimate tickets as listed and promised and by the specified delivery
date. The buyer must create an account with the platform and use a
secure form of payment (credit card) and be prepared to handle the
delivery of the tickets when they are transferred. Accountability and
trust on our platforms is evidenced by the fact that tens of millions
of happy fans buy their tickets each year on our member marketplaces.
This accountability and trust is rooted in the 100 percent fan
guarantees and refund protection that the marketplaces provide, along
with ticket verification and fulfillment services, a comparable
replacement ticket option when available should something go wrong, and
the ability for marketplaces to financially penalize sellers for not
delivering as required and even kicking them off platform entirely.
With tens of millions of successful ticket sales each year on our
member company marketplaces, we do not believe we suffer from a ``bad
actor'' problem but a ``bad actor'' worth the Committee's time and
attention is Live Nation/Ticketmaster. The company could provide the
ecosystem with ticket verification such that every legitimate ticket
sold by our marketplaces has irrefutable assurance that it will scan
for entry. As a result of anticompetitive and harmful exclusionary
conduct, however, some states have passed laws that make it illegal for
venues to deny entry to a fan on the basis that their ticket was
resold. In its amended complaint in the U.S. versus Live Nation/
Ticketmaster monopoly case, the DOJ includes detail how Ticketmaster
uses technology it markets for anti-fraud and counterfeits (called
SafeTix with revolving barcodes and QR codes) to intentionally deny
entry to ticketholders who purchased their tickets from a competing non
Ticketmaster ticketing company. This is a prime example of a bad actor
behaving in bad ways.
Ultimately, our members' success depends on trust. That trust is
built through strong guarantees, meaningful penalties, and decisive
action against bad actors--so that fans can focus on enjoying the
event, not worrying about whether their ticket will work.
Question 3. Consumer confidence in resale platforms, and the
ticketing industry generally, is at an all time low. The BOTS Act was
not meant to shield platforms from accountability. It was never meant
to be section 230 for ticketing platforms. What do you believe your
members' obligations are under the BOTS Act, and are you confident
they're adhering to those obligations?
Answer. There are agenda-driven industry participants that would
like to assert confidence in resale platforms is low, when it is not.
In fact our marketplace member companies made ``sold out'' and
``streetcorner ticket scalping'' relics of the past. Respectfully,
confidence and satisfaction on our platforms is evidenced by the fact
that tens of millions of happy fans buy their tickets each year on our
member marketplaces. We are proud to successfully serve so many fans
each year in getting them into the live events they love.
As for the BOTS Act, it was designed to deter the illegal
circumvention of ticket purchase limits at the point of initial sale
and specifically at the time of its passage, much of the discussion
circled around software script that could ``cut in line'' and allow
someone to jump ahead of those waiting to buy tickets and then be able
to scoop up large swaths of tickets in one fell swoop leaving no
tickets available for those waiting in line. The BOTS Act was not
intended to insulate any platform from responsibility, and resale
platforms should not be shielded from accountability.
Our members recognize that obligation.
Under the law, it is illegal to use automated software to bypass
primary ticket seller safeguards. While resale marketplaces are not the
targets of bot attacks in the same way primary sellers are, our members
have clear responsibilities:
1. Prohibit the listing of illegally obtained tickets.
Sellers must attest that tickets listed were obtained lawfully and
in compliance with applicable laws.
2. Enforce platform policies against misuse.
If there is evidence that tickets were acquired through unlawful
bot activity, our members investigate and take action,
including cancellation of listings, financial penalties, and
removal from the platform.
3. Cooperate with enforcement authorities.
Our members support FTC and state enforcement efforts and
encourage stronger, more consistent enforcement of bot laws.
That said, the ticketing ecosystem presents a structural challenge:
resale platforms do not control or operate the primary point of sale,
where bot activity occurs. Without interoperability or transparent
reporting from primary ticketing systems, there is no independent
mechanism for a resale marketplace to definitively determine whether a
particular ticket was purchased by a human or a bot.
Primary sellers are the entities that:
Operate the queue systems,
Set ticket limits,
Detect bot intrusions,
Cancel bot-procured tickets.
Resale platforms do not have visibility into those internal
systems.
This is precisely why stronger enforcement and greater transparency
at the primary level are critical. If large primary ticketing platforms
were required to report confirmed bot breaches and share relevant
ticket identifiers with enforcement agencies, the entire ecosystem,
including resale marketplaces, would be better positioned to prevent
unlawful resale.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Brian Berry
FIFA 2026 World Cup. The FTC's Junk Fees Rule and the TICKET Act
both mandate 'all-in pricing' to ensure fans aren't blindsided at
checkout. However, recent reports indicate that for the 2026 World Cup,
mandatory parking fees--a functional necessity for access--are being
siloed into a separate, opaque structure. Reported parking fees of over
$250 per parking pass may even exceed the cost to attend a 2026 World
Cup match altogether.
Question 1. For tickets sold to consumers for the upcoming FIFA
2026 World Cup, how will your platform ensure fans are not surprised by
a separate, opaque fee structure for a necessity to access the venue
where a World Cup match is held?
Answer. Our marketplaces offer for sale what the ticketholder/
seller purchased--whether that is a ticket for entry and nothing else,
or if that ticket includes ancillary services such as parking. So, if a
seller has a FIFA ticket with parking, that is what is sold. If a
seller only has a parking pass and is selling that, then that is what
they can sell. What our customers can expect is a transparent,
protected ticket buying experience for the World Cup.
I cannot speak to how FIFA is choosing to list parking passes or
other ancillary purchases aside from the tickets themselves, but for
listings on our members' platforms that are for parking passes, they
comply with all Federal rules and state and local laws regarding price
listings, including the FTC Junk Fee Rule. If improprieties are
reported to any of our marketplace member companies, they have staff
who investigate complaints and work to resolve them. So, for example if
a ticket that came with parking is split into two and that is reported
to the marketplace, it is easier for the marketplace to contact the
seller to remedy the situation.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
David Weingarden
Question 1. Existing laws that seek to police unfair, deceptive,
and anticompetitive practices in the live event ticketing industry--
including the BOTS Act--provide for a certain threshold of interagency
and intergovernmental coordination. The BOTS Act, for example, provides
for enforcement by the FTC and coordination with state attorneys
general, who may bring civil action in Federal court on the basis of
the BOTS Act, in consultation with the FTC. In practice--and in other
legislative proposals--enforcement and coordination include the
Department of Justice and other relevant state and local law
enforcement agencies. How do independent venues such as those
represented by your association support a competitive and fair live
event ticketing ecosystem?
Answer. Independent venues support a competitive and fair live
event ticketing ecosystem by prioritizing fan access, transparent
pricing, and accountability across the marketplace.
The BOTS Act was an important first step in outlawing the software
used by scalpers to hoard tickets and establishing a framework for
enforcement by the FTC and State Attorneys General. However, in the
nine years since its passage, there has been only one significant
Federal enforcement action despite the rampant bot activity our venues
face daily. For an independent promoter, even if enforced, the BOTS Act
is a reactive tool. It addresses illegal activity after a show, which
does nothing to help the fans who were priced out at onsale or the
venue that lost night-of revenue to bots and scalpers.
To meaningfully deter bots and restore fairness, two structural
reforms are necessary.
First, ticketing companies should be required to disclose when
circumvention has occurred on their platforms. If a primary ticketing
platform detects that security measures were bypassed during an onsale,
that information should be transparently reported and shared with
enforcement agencies. Transparency is critical to accountability.
Without mandatory disclosure, regulators and the public lack the
visibility into the true scope of bot activity. And it is widespread.
The MAIN Event Ticketing Act provides a strong model in this regard and
we support it moving forward.
Second, Congress and states should adopt resale price caps. Bots
exist because there is extraordinary financial incentive to resell
tickets in the secondary market. When tickets can be resold at
unlimited markups, automated software becomes a highly profitable
business model. If reasonable 10 percent resale price caps are
implemented, scalpers are disincentivized from employing bots in the
first place. We've heard this anecdotally from the venues in states
that have already passed resale price caps.
Independent venues like mine also support strong enforcement
against anticompetitive conduct in the live entertainment marketplace
and want the Live Nation antitrust case to continue in entirety. A
competitive ecosystem requires that dominant firms are held accountable
under existing antitrust law. Allowing consolidation or negotiated
settlements that fail to restore competition undermines independent
operators and limits real choice for artists and fans.
While we support the goals of Federal reform efforts, proposals
must also avoid creating new loopholes. For example, allowing resellers
to rebrand speculative listings as a ``concierge'' or ``procurement''
service, like in the current version of the TICKET Act, would
effectively legitimize the sale of tickets that do not yet exist and
undermine all the work independent venues are doing across the country
to protect our fans and businesses. Passing the TICKET Act would weaken
consumer protection and enshrine the very predatory practices reform is
intended to eliminate.
In the absence of sufficient Federal enforcement, independent
venues take real-time protective action. We manually scrub sales data,
cancel suspicious orders, limit ticket quantities, and implement
delayed delivery to safeguard inventory. But this places us in a
constant arms race. Without clear Federal standards that eliminate
speculative ticketing--advertising and selling tickets the scalper
doesn't actually have--mandate disclosure of security circumvention,
impose reasonable 10 percent resale price limits, and hold secondary
platforms accountable for the inventory they profit from, independent
venues will continue to shoulder the burden alone.
A competitive and fair ticketing ecosystem depends not only on laws
on the books, but on meaningful enforcement, structural deterrence, and
closing loopholes that allow predatory ticketing practices to persist.
[all]