Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ticketing Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears advocates and industry on bill to police ticket resale; 10% cap sparks sharp debate
Summary
Supporters told the Senate committee that H.512 would curb deceptive websites and speculative sales that scam Vermonters; ticket‑market platforms and some venue operators backed bans and disclosure rules but warned a 10% resale cap could be unenforceable and push sales to unregulated channels, raising fraud risks.
A Vermont Senate committee on Thursday heard competing testimony on SH H512, a bill that would regulate event ticket resale by banning speculative listings and deceptive websites and by allowing enforcement under state consumer‑protection law.
"Live events are really the heartbeat of Vermont's creative economy," said Susan Evans, executive director of the Vermont Arts Council, urging lawmakers to act after recounting cases in which Vermonters were lured to fake sites or paid inflated prices only to discover their tickets were invalid. Evans said the bill would give venues and consumers an avenue to report violations to the Attorney General and permit civil penalties, and she described a package of protections that includes a proposed 10% cap on secondary‑market markups.
Evans cited a 2023 example assembled by the National Independent Talent Association for two concerts at the Champlain Valley Expo, saying 493 tickets were resold at an average face value of $55 and an average resale price of $188 — a gap she said amounted to roughly $65,000 paid by Vermont fans that did not flow to local venues or artists.
Evans said the legislation would ban speculative listings — sales before a seller holds or has contracted delivery of tickets — outlaw websites that intentionally mimic venue sites, and allow the Attorney General to enforce the rules and pursue fines.
Representatives of resale platforms told the committee they agreed with banning speculative sales and with stronger disclosures, but most voiced strong objections to a 10% price cap.
"We support the ban on speculative tickets and deceptive websites," said David, a representative of StubHub, describing the company’s fan‑protect guarantee and fraud‑prevention systems. "But price caps just don't work the way people intend. They move transactions to unregulated channels and can increase fraud."
David and Brian Barry, executive director of a ticket‑marketplaces association, argued that capping resale prices can be difficult to enforce because original purchase prices and fees are not always verifiable, and that evidence from other jurisdictions is mixed. Barry urged lawmakers to prioritize clear disclosures and mandatory refund policies for regulated platforms and said several states and market actors have moved away from price caps.
Venues that sell tickets directly told a different part of the story. Kevin Sweeney, director of sales and marketing at nonprofit venue The Flynn, told senators his box office and staff field regular reports of fraud, duplicate sales and communication breakdowns when shows are rescheduled or canceled. He said card‑fraud incidents linked to resale activity cost the Flynn thousands of dollars and that the venue now spends staff time and monitoring resources he estimates exceed $50,000 per year.
"We have people showing up for canceled shows or arriving at the wrong time because resellers do not always pass along schedule changes," Sweeney said. "When fraud happens, the venue absorbs the loss."
Committee members pressed witnesses about technical details of implementing a 10% cap — whether taxes and fees are included, and whether caps would compound if a ticket is resold multiple times. Evans said the draft counts the total amount originally paid and would allow a resale up to 110% of that total, which raised follow‑up questions about compounding and enforcement.
Witnesses cited international examples. Platform representatives pointed to Ireland and other markets where they said caps led sellers to private channels and to a rise in fraud; advocates cited Maine's law and other efforts as models for curbing exploitation.
No formal action or vote was taken. Committee members asked witnesses to submit written testimony and materials for staff review and signaled the panel will continue work on the bill in upcoming hearings.
What happens next: the committee will consider testimony and potential amendments; proponents said enforcement should be routed through the Attorney General's consumer‑protection division and venues asked for clearer tools to notify ticket buyers when events change.
