TICKET Act Passes From Senate Commerce Committee, Heads to Senate

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has marked up and passed the Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act (S. 281) this week — a major step in fixing America’s ticketing system with fair, dynamic, and transparent pricing.

The bill — dubbed the most comprehensive ticketing consumer protection legislation in nearly a decade — mandates all-in pricing upfront with no hidden fees, bans deceptive “speculative” ticketing, ends deceptive websites with misleading URLs, and creates refund requirements to help fans get money back after a show is cancelled or postponed for a long time. Additionally, the bill requests an FTC BOTS Report.

John Brevault, National Consumer League Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud, noted in a statement that “consumers deserve fair, transparent, and reliable ticketing practices, and the TICKET Act delivers just that.”

“Hidden fees, speculative ticketing, and deceptive marketing practices have plagued the live event industry for far too long, leaving fans frustrated and out of pocket,” Brevault said. “The TICKET Act takes important steps toward fixing these issues, and NCL is proud to continue our support for this vital consumer protection legislation.”

Brian Hess, Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition, praised the passing of the TICKET Act, noting that “fans have called out for the TICKET Act for many years.”

“Today Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Senators Schmitt and Markey answered that call and advanced commonsense consumer protections in ticketing that will help sports fans buy tickets to their favorite games and protect them from deceptive sales,” Hess said in a statement. “We thank them for their tireless leadership on this issue, and urge the Senate to pass the bill quickly.”

| READ: Venue Lobby Reverses Support; Seeks to Kill Bipartisan TICKET Act |

In December, organizations within the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) contacted members of congress, urging them to leave the TICKET Act – which NIVA itself has endorsed publicly – out of a year-end Continuing Resolution (CR) spending bill.

“It’s a shame that the very same industry group that was bailed out by taxpayers during COVID has managed to waste so much taxpayer time for the past two years in Congress,”  said a TicketNews source involved with the legislation who shared the emails sent to lawmakers and their staff by NIVA affiliates seeking to torpedo the TICKET Act inclusion on the condition of anonymity.

“All players in the system had input and TICKET Act was the compromise. [Organizations like NIVA and Live Nation/Ticketmaster] endorsed it but clearly never really did. Federal and state lawmakers should appreciate that some who claim to represent venues and artists are just the same as Ticketmaster – it’s “my way or nothing” with them. The TICKET Act is a fan protection bill and that’s what it will do. It’s not about protecting for-profit industry players, nor should it be.”

The TICKET Act was previously passed overwhelmingly by the House with unanimous support from Democrats and a 186-24 margin from Republicans.

While NIVA has publicly supported the TICKET Act, it has put most of its efforts towards the passage of the Live Nation Entertainment-backed “Fans First Act,” which would largely enable venues and event promoters to fully regulate their own industry. That bill was the subject of an earlier effort to sneak it on as an amendment to a “must-pass” FAA funding bill by one of its sponsors.

Live Nation executives have already signaled optimism that the current Republican administration will be much friendlier to their business model than the outgoing Biden administration, hoping for a more “traditional” approach to antitrust affairs. They feel it is possible that even their sprawling antitrust lawsuit, supported by Attorneys General covering most of the U.S. population on both sides of the political spectrum, will also go away. The suit, filed this past May, seeks to break-up the pair, citing monopolistic and anticompetitive practices. A trial date is currently set for 2026.