Ticket Resale, All‑In Pricing and Refunds Draw Testimony; Venues Urge Protections Against Spoofing and Speculative Listings

University and nonprofit arts presenters, independent promoters and venue operators told the General Law Committee they support greater transparency — including showing the total ticket price including fees — but urged careful drafting to protect consumers and avoid unintended consequences.

All‑in pricing and display rules: University of Connecticut athletics and several performing arts centers said they already provide confirmations with itemized receipts and support displaying a total ticket price at point of sale so purchasers are not surprised at checkout. UConn asked the committee to avoid forcing fee breakdowns into mobile tickets (which are admission tokens) and said the receipt or order confirmation that accompanies a mobile ticket is the appropriate place for a detailed fee breakdown.

Refunds for cancellations and postponed events: Venue managers said refunds should be automatic for cancelled events and urged a short statutory deadline for reseller and primary‑seller refunds (witnesses suggested seven days as reasonable). They warned that delayed refunds trap consumer funds, create liquidity benefits for resellers and reduce local economic activity (concessions and parking) and tax receipts.

Speculative listings and spoofed storefronts: Several venue witnesses described “speculative” listings and website spoofing — items listed for sale before the seller actually holds the tickets — and urged rules to ban speculative offers and to make it unlawful to display venue seating charts and ticket maps on unauthorised reseller sites. One presenter said he discovered dozens of “bogus orders” placed under fabricated names; another urged a consumer‑reporting portal and clear statutory penalties for spoofing.

Exclusivity and state‑funded venues: Witnesses and advocates urged the committee to prohibit long‑term exclusive ticketing contracts for state‑funded venues that block competitor platforms and reduce consumers’ access to competitive distribution. Industry witnesses and consumer advocates said that sports teams and family shows often enjoy broad resale and distribution rights that are not equally available to performers, which can affect where acts choose to play.

Price caps and the secondary market: Observers opposed arbitrary resale price caps (for example a 25% uplift cap that was discussed in testimony), saying caps have historically introduced market distortions and can penalize small consumers who resell a single ticket to cover season‑ticket costs. The National‑scale ticketing witnesses warned price caps can produce unintended consequences, such as reducing liquidity and harming fans who need flexibility.

Ending: Members said they wanted to refine language on “all‑in” pricing, prompt refunds for cancelled events, anti‑spoofing protections, and narrow restrictions on exclusive contracts at publicly funded venues. Staff were asked to circulate redraft options based on witnesses’ suggestions.