Vermont venues urge lawmakers to cap ticket resale markups, consider registration under H.512

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development heard testimony Thursday from theater operators who urged lawmakers to cap secondary‑market markups and require reseller registration as part of bill H.512, saying current online resale practices are harming patrons and nonprofit venues across the state.

The testimony came from managers and directors at Vermont performing‑arts venues, who described automated resale operations, phantom or duplicate sales, and out‑of‑state resellers buying large blocks of tickets and listing them at steep markups. "We're talking about scalpers — people that are knowingly looking to make extreme profit margins by purchasing tickets to venues and selling them again at a high profit margin," said Eric Millett, executive director of the Paramount Theatre in Rutland.

Committee members were told why witnesses want a two‑part approach: registration so the state can identify and monitor resellers, and a cap on the margin above face value to prevent large speculative markups. "If a law is established that creates avenues for scalpers to continue this malfeasance ... we need a law that caps the margin on top of the face value of the ticket," Millett said, suggesting a cap between 0 and 10 percent as a policy goal.

Why it matters: witnesses said inflated resale prices reduce access to live arts, harm venue reputations, and impose financial costs on nonprofit presenters. "Our goal is to make our building as accessible as possible to everybody in our community," said Janelle Soren, box office and marketing manager at the Paramount Theatre. Soren described a caller who paid $195 for what should have been a $10 senior ticket to a youth theater performance and could not bring family members as planned because of resale and convenience fees.

Venue operators described additional concrete impacts. Kevin Sweeney, director of sales and marketing at the Flynn Theatre in Burlington, told the committee that for some announced shows he estimates roughly 40 percent of tickets were initially purchased for resale. Sweeney said the Flynn (and other venues) detect suspicious purchases, invalidate suspect orders and attempt refunds, but resellers often keep the proceeds. He said his organization estimated last year roughly $18,000 in proven fraudulent credit‑card chargebacks and about $30,000 in labor costs dealing with fraud and customer service related to resale issues.

Speakers explained the mechanics they see online: resellers bid heavily on search advertising so sponsored links appear above a venue’s official page, creating the appearance that the resale page is the venue site. Patrons who click those ads sometimes pay high prices for tickets that may not yet exist or that have been sold multiple times. "They pay extreme prices ... to Google or other search engines who have that first place appearance," Millett said. "That ticket can be sold more than once." Janelle Soren added that when patrons arrive at the box office without valid tickets, venues sometimes are able to accommodate them but often cannot, leaving patrons and venues harmed.

Committee members pressed witnesses on potential consumer exceptions, for example allowing face‑value transfers between friends. Witnesses said most modern ticketing platforms used by larger venues already permit controlled transfers that keep transactions within the venue’s system, and that a resale‑margin cap would tighten existing loopholes while preserving legitimate transfers.

Lawmakers and witnesses discussed enforcement pathways. Several witnesses recommended consulting the Vermont Attorney General’s Office and using consumer‑protection tools where tickets were paid for but not delivered. The committee chair said the panel may take more testimony from the attorney general’s office and plans to revisit the issue in January. "We'll be taking this up in January and, trying to put something through that can protect Vermonters and protect our Vermont businesses as well," the chair said.

Discussion vs. formal action: testimony and committee remarks were exploratory; no bill language was adopted and there were no votes. Witnesses agreed to provide the committee with aggregated, non‑proprietary data (chargeback totals, staff hours, and documented incidents) to inform drafting. Committee members asked that submitted data avoid proprietary details and any appearance of collusion among venues.

Background and examples: witnesses cited other jurisdictions as models. Millett said he and colleagues reviewed New York State's approach to the secondary market and described it as a model that limits profitability for resellers. Witnesses also named national resale platforms during testimony, including StubHub, Ticketmaster/Live Nation and Vivid Seats, and described how some resale listings use venue photos and ambiguous labeling that can mislead consumers.

The committee requested more evidence from venues and the Attorney General’s Office before drafting legislative language. Witnesses suggested a combined approach — registration plus a resale‑margin cap — and recommended a public education campaign led by the Attorney General's Office to help consumers identify authorized sellers.

The committee did not adopt any formal policy at Thursday's hearing. Members signaled they will continue the conversation, collect additional data from venues, and seek guidance from the Attorney General’s Office ahead of further work on H.512 in January.