Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland debate resurfaces over resale caps and reseller registry in HB 77
Summary
House Bill 77 would create a registry for high‑volume ticket resellers, require semiannual reporting, ban speculative listings, cap resale and marketplace fees, and require upfront, itemized pricing; proponents said caps protect concertgoers and musicians, while platforms warned caps are unenforceable and could push sales to unregulated markets.
Delegate Jamila Woods told the Economic Matters Committee HB 77 is intended to restore transparency and limit abusive resale practices in Maryland’s secondary ticket market. The bill would require high‑volume resellers (those selling or offering 50 or more tickets in a calendar year) to register with the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, submit semiannual reports on sales and prices, prohibit speculative listings, cap resale at the original total price plus 10 percent, limit marketplace service fees and require clear, itemized pricing at point of sale.
Woods said the bill targets predatory bulk purchasers who resell tickets at extreme markups, citing examples where $50 tickets were listed for thousands of dollars. Support came from concert venues, independent venues, musician advocates and consumer groups who argued caps would curb artificial scarcity created by bots and speculative purchasing. "This is about preventing those scammers and persons who are purchasing tickets with the sole intent of reselling them at astronomical prices," Woods told the committee.
Opponents — including SeatGeek, StubHub, the Ticket Policy Forum, and Chamber of Progress — argued that the 2024 Maryland law already implemented strong protections (all‑in pricing and a ban on speculative listings) and that caps are technically difficult to enforce, risk driving transactions to unregulated channels, and would impose burdensome reporting and data collection (including proprietary inventory disclosures and potential privacy issues). Industry witnesses also warned of interstate‑commerce and enforcement challenges and contested the fiscal‑note assumptions about registry costs.
The Attorney General’s consumer‑protection division told the committee the proposed registration scheme as written could be resource‑intensive and unworkable — particularly if it required registering many individual sellers — and that modifications would be necessary to make enforcement feasible. Committee members asked about sports‑ticket carve‑outs for season‑ticket holders and the mechanics of determining seller intent; the sponsor said amendments were under consideration. No vote was taken; the hearing produced extensive cross‑examination and a record of competing policy and implementation concerns.
