Vermont committee debates 10% ticket-resale cap and carve-outs for face-value platforms
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Witnesses told the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on Feb. 3 that a 10% cap on resale markups would protect consumers but could make face-value platforms unsustainable unless the law exempts partnered services. Lawmakers discussed a possible higher cap for contracted partnerships and will hear more testimony Friday.
Brando Rich, founder and CEO of CashorTrade.org, told the House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development on Feb. 3 that Vermont’s proposed 10% cap on resale markups must distinguish predatory brokers from bona fide face-value resale platforms.
Rich said Cash or Trade operates as a face-value secondary market that charges buyers a 10% platform fee and a 3% credit-card processing fee while charging sellers nothing. “We don't charge the seller at all. We charge the buyer 10%, but there's a 3% credit card fee,” he said, urging lawmakers to exempt partnered face-value platforms from strict percentage caps so those services can cover costs for fraud protection, escrow, and liability.
The testimony framed the committee’s debate: supporters of the cap said it protects Vermont consumers from excessive markups, while platforms and some venue representatives argued that a narrow statutory definition could unintentionally ban or cripple low-margin face-value services that venues rely on to reduce chargebacks and fill seats.
Susan Evans McClure, executive director of the Vermont Arts Council, told the committee the 10% cap has become a national standard and is intended to protect consumers. “I think 10% is not going to kill a secondary market, but it is gonna protect Vermont consumers,” she said, and cautioned that carve-outs for partnered platforms “create a loophole where anyone can step in,” complicating enforcement.
Members questioned how to define “face value” and what fees count toward the cap. One committee member asked whether credit-card fees should be excluded from the statutory calculation; Rich replied that face value should reflect what the fan actually paid on the primary market (ticket plus fees), and that statute language must be explicit about included charges. Rich also described operational safeguards his platform uses: holding funds in escrow, providing fraud protection, and negotiating revenue-split arrangements with venues (he said partner shares of approximately 2–5% have been discussed).
The committee also discussed a compromise raised during the hearing: keep a 10% default cap for nonpartnered resales but allow a higher cap (members suggested up to 20%) when there is an explicit contract between the event or venue and the reseller. Lawmakers asked whether the attorney general’s office could enforce partnership-based exceptions and whether venues could be asked to list authorized resellers on their websites to increase consumer transparency.
Witnesses referenced other jurisdictions; Rich noted Maine recently passed a 10% cap but said the law is too new for firm economic conclusions. Committee members agreed to gather more information from Vermont venues and enforcement counsel and said they would hear additional testimony Friday from StubHub and the Secretary of State’s office.
The committee recessed after scheduling follow-up testimony. No formal vote or motion was recorded during this session.