Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Tickets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Negotiated bill to ban speculative ticketing moves forward after venue and marketplace testimony
Summary
A narrow, stakeholder-negotiated concept (LC 137) to ban speculative ticketing for live events was presented to the Senate committee; proponents described frequent consumer harm and venues' "Maingate heartbreak," platforms said the ban matches marketplace policies and enforcement remedies would use Oregon's consumer-protection law (UTPA).
A narrowly drawn bill to ban "speculative" ticket sales for live events drew unified support from venue operators and conditional support from ticket marketplaces during a Senate interim hearing Tuesday.
Marnie Smith, owner and general manager of the Hayden Homes Amphitheatre in Bend, told lawmakers that speculative ticketing'selling a ticket a reseller does not have or cannot deliver'regularly leaves fans without valid admission and damages venues' reputations. "Speculative ticketing is the practice of selling a ticket that's not in the seller's possession. It's a highly deceptive practice that tricks consumers," Smith said, describing the resulting "Maingate Heartbreak" when fans travel to events and discover invalid or duplicate tickets.
The version before the committee, LC 137, was negotiated during interim stakeholder meetings and is intentionally narrow, focusing only on live entertainment events and prohibiting resale when the seller lacks actual or constructive possession or explicit authorization from the venue or operator. Amanda Dalton of StubHub, who participated in the stakeholder table, said major marketplaces prohibit speculative ticket sales in platform policy and that the LC's constructive-possession language is important to avoid sweeping in ordinary presales.
The draft would make speculative ticketing an unlawful practice under Oregon's consumer-protection statute (UTPA), enabling enforcement through consumer actions and by the Attorney General. Committee members asked how enforcement would distinguish a one-time consumer resale from a commercial pattern of deceptive reselling; stakeholders said that analysis would be driven by DOJ and fact patterns and that LC 137 deliberately avoids the broader transferability debate for this short session.
Chair Taylor said she expected the bill to start in the House and that the Senate would likely consider it if the House advances the measure; the committee did not take final action Tuesday.
