[Senate Report 119-17]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 63
119th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 119-17
_______________________________________________________________________
TRANSPARENCY IN CHARGES FOR KEY EVENTS TICKETING ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 281
April 29, 2025.--Ordered to be printed
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-010 WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred nineteenth congress
first session
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
TED BUDD, North Carolina JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
JOHN CURTIS, Utah JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
TIM SHEEHY, Montana ANDY KIM, New Jersey
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Brad Grantz, Majority Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Staff Director
Calendar No. 63
119th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 119-17
======================================================================
TRANSPARENCY IN CHARGES FOR KEY EVENTS TICKETING ACT
_______
April 29, 2025.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Cruz, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 281]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 281) to require sellers of
event tickets to disclose comprehensive information to
consumers about ticket prices and related fees, to prohibit
speculative ticketing, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 281, the TICKET Act, is to require
sellers of event tickets to implement a number of pro-consumer
policies within the live event ticketing marketplace, including
requirements to disclose comprehensive information up front to
consumers about ticket prices and related fees, ban the sale of
speculative event tickets, and provide refunds for certain
canceled or postponed live events.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
Drip pricing is the practice of advertising only part of a
product's price up front and revealing additional charges later
as a consumer goes through the purchasing process. When drip
pricing is used in the sale of event tickets, purchasers will
likely experience additional mandatory charges or fees on their
purchase, which are not disclosed to the consumer with the
initial price. As a result of drip pricing, consumers may pay
significantly more for an event ticket than the advertised
price. A 2019 report by Consumer Reports found that at least 85
percent of Americans have encountered an unexpected or hidden
fee for a service they had used in the past 2 years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Penelope Wang, ``Protect Yourself From Hidden Fees,'' Consumer
Reports, May 29, 2019 (https://www.consumerreports.org/money/fees-
billing/protect-yourself-from-hidden-fees-a1096754265/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long expressed
concerns with drip pricing, noting that such advertisements
deceptively lower consumers' estimates of how much they expect
to (and will) pay for a product or service. In 2012, the FTC
hosted a conference to examine drip pricing.\2\ FTC staff made
a recommendation for upfront pricing for hotels in a 2017 staff
report.\3\ The Department of Transportation requires airlines
to advertise the full fare for air transportation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\``The Economics of Drip Pricing,'' Federal Trade Commission, May
21, 2012 (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2012/05/economics-
drip-pricing).
\3\Mary W. Sullivan, Economic Issues: Economic Analysis of Hotel
Resort Fees, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, January
2017 (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
documents/reports/economic-analysis-hotel-resort-fees/
p115503_hotel_resort_fees_economic_
issues_paper.pdf).
\4\U.S. Department of the Transportation, Office of the Secretary,
``Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections,'' 76 Fed. Reg. 23166 (April
25, 2011) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-04-25/pdf/2011-
9736.pdf). Since 2011, the Department of Transportation has required
airlines to advertise the ``entire price'' to be paid by the customer
for air transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied
the ticket market and concluded that, on average, 27 percent of
the total price for a ticket is comprised of fees, and in some
cases that percentage can climb as high as 75 percent. GAO
further noted similar issues with drip pricing by both primary
and secondary ticket sales, finding that of the events
reviewed, in more than 60 percent of sales in the primary
ticket market, consumers could ascertain the amount of fees
only by: (1) selecting a seat; (2) clicking through one or two
additional screens; (3) creating a user name and password (or
logging in); and (4) clicking an icon labeled Order Details
which displayed the ticket's face-value price and the fees. In
the secondary market, GAO found that for 7 out of 11 websites,
ticket fees were only disclosed at the very end of the purchase
process.\5\ This is one reason why GAO suggested Congress
consider a requirement that the all-in-price should be
disclosed to consumers up front.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Government Accountability Office, Event Ticket Sales: Market
Characteristics and Consumer Protection Issues, GAO-18-347, April 2018
(https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-347.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2019, the FTC held a workshop exploring the online
event ticket marketplace. All workshop panelists that discussed
event ticket fees--including participating ticket sellers--
supported legislation or rulemaking to require that event
ticket prices be inclusive of additional fees up front and
deterring violators through strong enforcement with meaningful
penalties.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Federal Trade Commission, ``That's the Ticket'' Workshop: Staff
Perspective, May 2020 (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/
reports/thats-ticket-workshop-staff-perspective/
staffperspective_tickets_final-508.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies show that consumers only look at the advertised or
listed price when making purchase decisions; sellers are
thereby incentivized to hide as many fees as possible to
compete with other sellers.\7\ Disclosing the all-in price up
front allows consumers to shop more efficiently, by allowing
them to effectively comparison shop and avoid spending more
than they intended to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Alexander Rasch et al., ``Drip Pricing and Its Regulation:
Experimental Evidence,'' Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
vol. 176 (August 2020), pp. 353-370 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/abs/pii/S0167268120301189).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2023, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection,
Product Safety, and Data Security of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on
``Protecting Consumers from Junk Fees,'' which highlighted the
need for legislative action, including in the event ticketing
space.\8\ Hidden fees are particularly common for event
ticketing, where consumers often learn of additional fees after
selecting a seat for a particular event and entering their
information. Drip pricing is especially problematic for sports
fans and concert goers who are shopping for a finite number of
tickets with a deadline to buy their tickets before an event
commences or sells out. These consumers are impeded by
imperfect information and cannot adequately comparison shop--
they risk losing out on making the best (i.e. lowest price)
purchase before another buyer swoops in and buys the ticket
instead. As a result of such hidden fees, and the confusion
they inject into the purchasing process, consumers tend to buy
more expensive products than they otherwise would have, such as
a closer, pricier seat at a concert.\9\ Additionally,
competitors who choose to display such fees up front are at a
competitive disadvantage as their prices appear to be more
expensive at first glance. Legislation is needed to ensure that
all competitors are held to the same standard and consumers are
concretely protected from hidden fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\``Protecting Consumers From Junk Fees,'' hearing before the
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security
of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 118th
Congress, June 8, 2023 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
118shrg58145/pdf/CHRG-118shrg58145.pdf).
\9\Tom Blake et al., ``Price Salience and Product Choice,''
Marketing Science, vol. 40, no. 4 (May 19, 2021), pp. 619-636,
available online by subscription (https://doi.org/10.1287/
mksc.2020.1261). See also Shelle Santana et al., ``Consumers' Reactions
to Drip Pricing,'' Marketing Science, vol. 39, no. 1 (January 15,
2020), pp. 188-210, available online by subscription (https://doi.org/
10.1287/mksc.2019.1207).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, S. 281 would include a prohibition on
speculative tickets and certain mandatory refunds for ticket
purchasers that reflect provisions of H.R. 3950 (118th
Congress), which was passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives on May 15, 2024.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
S. 281, as amended, would do the following:
Require ticket issuers, secondary market ticket
issuers, or secondary market ticket exchanges to
disclose the all-in price, which is the price inclusive
of all ticket fees including service fees, order
processing fees, delivery fees, facility charge fees,
and taxes, among other charges.
Require such disclosure for tickets for events,
defined as any live concert, theatrical performance,
sporting event, show, or similarly scheduled live
activity, taking place in a venue with a seating or
attendance capacity exceeding 200 persons that is open
to the general public and is promoted, advertised, or
marketed in interstate commerce or for which event
tickets are generally sold or distributed in interstate
commerce.
Require such disclosure to occur (1) in any
advertisement, marketing, or price list where a price
is displayed; and (2) at the beginning of a transaction
and throughout the ticket purchasing process.
Require ticket issuers, secondary market ticket
issuers, or secondary market ticket exchanges to
provide an itemized list of the base ticket price and
each ticket fee.
Prohibit ticket issuers, secondary market ticket
issuers, or secondary market ticket exchanges from
selling or offering for sale a ticket that a seller
does not have actual or constructive possession of
(also known as a speculative ticket).
Permit ticket issuers, secondary market ticket
issuers, or secondary market ticket exchanges to
provide services to an individual to obtain an event
ticket on behalf of an individual.
Require ticket issuers, secondary market ticket
issuers, or secondary market ticket exchanges to
provide notice if a ticket that is being offered for
sale is a resale ticket.
Prohibit a ticket issuer, secondary market ticket
issuer, or secondary market ticket exchange from
stating that the ticket issuer, secondary market ticket
issuer, or secondary market exchange is affiliated or
endorsed by a venue, team, or artist unless an
agreement has been executed or if the issuer or
exchange has consent of the applicable venue, team, or
artist.
Prohibit a ticket issuer, secondary market ticket
issuer, or secondary market ticket exchange from
including the name of a venue, including any
misspellings of any such name, in a domain name, or any
subdomain thereof, in the URL of the issuer or exchange
unless authorized by the owner of the venue.
Require ticket issuers, secondary market ticket
issuers, or secondary market ticket exchanges to
provide refunds or replacement tickets for canceled or
postponed events (except for postponements for causes
beyond the reasonable control of the issuer) in certain
circumstances.
Require the Federal Trade Commission to submit to
Congress a report on enforcement of the Better Online
Ticket Sales Act of 2016\10\ within 6 months of
enactment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Public Law 114-274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorize the Federal Trade Commission to enforce
violations of the Act.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 281, the TICKET Act, was introduced on January 28, 2025,
by Senator Schmitt (for himself and Senator Markey) and was
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. On February 5, 2025, the
Committee met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote,
ordered S. 281 reported favorably with amendments.
118th Congress
S. 1303, the TICKET Act, was introduced on April 26, 2023,
by Senator Cruz (for himself and Senator Cantwell) and was
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. On July 27, 2023, the Committee
met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S.
1303 reported favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute). On September 12, 2023, that bill was reported and
placed on the Senate Calendar. On April 11, 2024, Senator
Rounds was added as a cosponsor.
H.R. 3950, a House companion bill to S. 1303, was
introduced on June 9, 2023, by Representative Bilirakis (for
himself and Representative Schakowsky) and was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of
Representatives. Sixteen cosponsors were later added. H.R.
3950, as amended, passed its Committee with a recorded vote of
45-0 on December 6, 2023, and that bill passed the House on May
15, 2024. However, H.R. 3950 had significant differences from
the Senate version of the TICKET Act. During the Senate
Committee's markup, members decided to combine S. 1303 with
H.R. 6568, the Speculative Ticketing Oversight and Prohibition
Act, which adopted additional ticketing provisions, including a
ban on speculative ticketing and guaranteed refunds.
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
Summary of legislation: On February 5, 2025, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered
reported a total of 17 bills. This document provides estimates
for 5 of those bills.
S. 99, S. 195, and S. 245 would require the Department of
Commerce to study supply chains, promote music tourism, and
establish a working group on cyber insurance; S. 281 and S. 314
would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce new
prohibitions related to ticket prices for live events and hotel
prices.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated costs do not include
any effects of interactions among the bills. If all five bills
were combined and enacted as a single piece of legislation, the
estimated costs could be different from the sum of the separate
estimates, although CBO expects that any differences would be
small. The costs of the legislation fall within budget function
370 (commerce and housing credit).
Basis of estimate: For these estimates, CBO assumes that
the bills will be enacted near the middle of fiscal year 2025
and that the estimated amounts will be appropriated each year.
CBO estimates that all five bills would affect spending subject
to appropriation and that S. 281 and S. 314 would affect
revenues.
S. 99, Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing
Act, would require the Department of Commerce to contract with
the National Academy of Public Administration to study programs
operated by the department that aim to improve the resilience
of critical supply chains and provide technical assistance to
U.S. manufacturers. The report would identify interagency gaps
and duplicative responsibilities among offices and recommend
improvements.
Using information from the Department of Commerce, CBO
estimates that completing the study would cost $2 million over
the 2025-2030 period, including employee and contracting costs.
Any related spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
S. 195, American Music Tourism Act of 2025, would require
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Travel and Tourism to
promote music tourism in the United States and periodically
report to the Congress. In 2024, the Assistant Secretary
received $3.5 million to carry out the requirements of the
Visit America Act, a 2022 law to promote travel and tourism in
the United States.
Using information about the Assistant Secretary's
responsibilities under current law, CBO estimates that
implementing the requirements in the bill would cost less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2030 period. Any related spending would
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
S. 245, Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2025, would require the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration to
establish an interagency working group on cyber insurance,
composed of members from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, Department of Justice, Department of the
Treasury, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
the FTC. The working group would be required to report to the
Congress no later than one year after it forms.
Using information about the cost of similar working groups,
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2026 period. Any related spending would
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
S. 281, TICKET Act, would require companies that issue
tickets or that sell tickets on the secondary market to clearly
display the total price of any ticket, including itemizing any
fees not included in the base ticket price. The bill also would
prohibit entities from offering or advertising tickets that
they do not possess, require entities to clearly disclose if a
ticket is for re-sale, and direct ticket sellers to refund
buyers if an event is cancelled. Those requirements would apply
to live events at venues with an attendance capacity of 200
people or more. The FTC would enforce those requirements.
Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates
implementing the bill would cost the FTC $4 million over the
2025-2030 period to issue guidance and to monitor and enforce
violations. Any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. In addition, CBO estimates
that enacting the bill could increase civil penalty
collections, which are recorded in the budget as revenues, by
an insignificant amount.
S. 314, Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, would require
providers of short-term lodging and websites that advertise or
offer such lodging to display upfront the full lodging price
and each mandatory fee required to complete a booking. The FTC
would enforce those requirements.
Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates
implementing the bill would cost the FTC $4 million over the
2025-2030 period to issue guidance and to monitor and enforce
violations. Any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. In addition, CBO estimates
that enacting the bill could increase civil penalty
collections, which are recorded in the budget as revenues, by
an insignificant amount.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: CBO estimates that enacting
S. 281 and S. 314 would each increase revenues by less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2035 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply to those bills.
Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that none of the bills would increase net direct
spending or deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2036.
Mandates: Two of the bills ordered reported by the
committee contain mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA).
S. 281, TICKET Act, would impose private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA on ticket sellers and resellers by requiring
certain changes, including new refund policies to the ticketing
process. CBO estimates the aggregate cost to comply with the
mandates would be above the threshold established in UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($206 million in 2025, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Under the bill, if an event is cancelled, ticket sellers
and resellers would be required to provide a refund of the full
ticket price, including taxes and fees, to ticket purchasers.
If an event is postponed, sellers and resellers would be
required to provide customers either a full refund or a
replacement ticket, if available, subject to the customer's
preference. Sellers also would be required to disclose this
refund policy. The bill allows for exceptions to this policy in
cases where the cancellation or postponement is beyond the
control of the ticket issuer, such as natural disasters. Based
on discussions with industry sources, a substantial share of
sellers and resellers already provide full refunds for
cancelled events but few offer refunds for postponed events.
Considerable uncertainty surrounds the ways that federal
regulations might define what is within the control of the
issuer in the event of a cancellation or postponement or what
might constitute comparable replacement events. Given the large
size of the industry and the amount of revenue generated by
ticketed events, CBO estimates that the cost of this mandate
would exceed the threshold for private-sector mandates.
S. 281 also would require ticket sellers and resellers to
make certain up-front disclosures to consumers. They would need
to disclose the ticket prices, including taxes and fees. Those
disclosures would occur at the time a ticket is first displayed
to a consumer and in any advertisements or marketing. The bill
also would require ticket sellers and resellers to provide an
itemized list of the base price and all fees. Information from
industry sources indicates that most ticket sellers have
already begun to provide the total cost to consumers in
advance; thus, CBO expects the additional requirements in the
bill to have small costs.
The bill also would require ticket resellers to disclose to
consumers that they are resellers before any purchase is
complete. Sellers and resellers would be prohibited from
selling or advertising any ticket that the seller does not have
actually or constructively possess. In certain instances,
sellers also would be prohibited from revealing to consumers
and using the name of venues, teams, artists, and events in
their online domain names. CBO expects that those disclosures
and prohibitions would impose minimal costs on the sellers.
The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
S. 314, Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, would impose
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA. CBO estimates that the cost to comply with those mandates
would not exceed thresholds established in UMRA ($103 million
and $206 million in 2025, respectively, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The bill would preempt state and local laws governing the
display of prices for short-term lodging. Although the
preemptions would limit the application of state and local
laws, it would impose no duty on state or local governments
that would result in significant spending or loss of revenues.
The bill would require hotels, short-term rentals, online
booking websites, and any other third-party temporary
accommodation sellers to disclose upfront the total price of
lodging, including any government-imposed fees. Information
from industry sources and the FTC indicates that several
lodging providers already comply with provisions in the bill.
In addition, an FTC final rule, set to go into effect in April,
will require short-term lodging sellers to disclose all
associated fees to customers. CBO expects the cost for other
entities to comply would be small because many providers
already comply and those who do not already possess the fee
information required to be displayed.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs and revenues: David
Hughes; Mandates: Grace Watson and Rachel Austin.
Estimate reviewed by: Justin Humphrey, Chief, Finance,
Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen
FitzGerald, Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel
Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director,
Congressional Budget Office.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
Number of Persons Covered
S. 281 would cover the following entities and any employees
retained by them:
Ticket issuers, as defined in the Better Online
Ticket Sales Act of 2016;\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Public Law 114-274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any person for which it is in the regular course of
the trade or business of the person to resell or make a
secondary sale of a ticket to an event (as the term
``event'' is defined in the Act);
Any person for which it is in the regular course of
trade or business of that person to operate a platform
or exchange for advertising, listing, or selling resale
tickets, on behalf of itself, vendors, or a secondary
market ticket issuer; and
The Federal Trade Commission.
Economic Impact
Based on industry sources, compliance costs associated with
S. 281's requirements are expected to be minimal and would be
heavily outweighed by the benefits to consumers. By increasing
transparency in the event ticketing market, S. 281 would allow
consumers to more effectively comparison shop and select the
best-priced tickets. Therefore, the bill is expected to save
consumers both time and money.
Privacy
S. 281 is not anticipated to impact the personal privacy of
individuals.
Paperwork
S. 281 is not anticipated to generate any additional
paperwork.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
This section would provide that the bill may be cited as
the ``Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act'' or
the ``TICKET Act''.
Section 2. All-inclusive ticket price disclosure
This section would provide that it shall be unlawful for a
ticket issuer, secondary market ticket issuer, or secondary
market ticket exchange from offering an event ticket for sale
unless that issuer: (1) clearly and conspicuously displays the
total event ticket price--if a price is displayed--in any
advertisement, marketing, or price list where the ticket is
offered for sale; (2) clearly and conspicuously discloses to an
individual who seeks to purchase an event ticket the total
event ticket price at the time the ticket is first displayed to
that individual and anytime thereafter during the purchasing
process; and (3) provides an itemized list of the base event
ticket price and each event ticket fee.
Section 3. Speculative ticketing ban
This section would provide that a ticket issuer, secondary
market ticket issuer, or secondary market ticket exchange that
does not have actual or constructive possession of an event
ticket shall not sell, offer for sale, or advertise for sale
such event ticket.
This section would further provide that a secondary market
ticket issuer or exchange may sell, offer for sale, or
advertise for sale, a service to an individual to obtain an
event ticket on behalf of such individual if such issuer or
exchange: (1) does not market or list the service as an event
ticket; (2) maintains clear separation between the service and
event tickets; and (3) discloses before the selection of the
service that the service does not guarantee an event ticket.
Section 4. Disclosures
This section would provide that a ticket issuer, secondary
market ticket issuer, or secondary market ticket exchange shall
do the following:
If an event ticket being sold is a resale, disclose
to the consumer prior to purchase that such ticket is a
resale and the issuer or exchange is engaged in the
secondary sale of event tickets;
Not state an affiliation or endorsement by a venue,
team, or artist unless a partnership agreement has been
executed or the issuer or exchange has the express
written consent of such venue, team, or artist; and
Not include the name of a venue, including any
misspellings of any such name, in a domain name, or
subdomain thereof, in the URL of the issuer or
exchange, unless authorized by the owner of the venue.
Section 5. Refund requirements
This section would provide that if an event is canceled or
postponed (except for a cause beyond the reasonable control of
the issuer), a ticket issuer, secondary market ticket issuer,
or secondary market ticket exchange shall provide the purchaser
of an event ticket the following:
If the event is canceled, a full refund for the
total event ticket price;
If the event is postponed less than 6 months and the
original ticket is no longer valid, a replacement
ticket, subject to availability; or
If the event is postponed more than 6 months, at the
option of the purchaser,
A full refund for the total event ticket price; or
If the original event ticket is no longer valid, a
replacement event ticket.
Further, this section would require disclosure of the
guarantee or refund policy of the ticket issuer, secondary
market ticket issuer, or secondary market ticket exchange as
well as information on how to obtain a refund of the total
event ticket price.
Section 6. Report by the Federal Trade Commission on BOTS Act of 2016
enforcement
This section would require the FTC to submit a report to
Congress within 6 months of enactment regarding the enforcement
of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Public Law 114-274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 7. Enforcement
This section would provide that a violation of this Act
shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or
deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Section 8. Definitions
This section would define the key terms in the bill,
including ``artist'', ``base event ticket price'',
``Commission'', ``event'', ``event ticket'', ``event ticket
fee'', ``optional product or service'', ``resale'', ``secondary
market ticket exchange'', ``secondary market ticket issuer'',
``secondary sale'', ``ticket issuer'', ``total event ticket
price'', ``URL'', and ``venue''.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.