Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ticketing Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears overview of bill to cap ticket resale at 110% and ban deceptive reseller practices
Summary
H8512/H512 would require secondary ticket platforms to disclose when a buyer is purchasing from a reseller, ban speculative tickets and deceptive URLs, and cap resale prices at 110% of the original price (total including fees); counsel flagged definitional and enforcement issues and asked for comparisons with other states.
Representative Emily Harris Funkin of the House Commerce Committee introduced H8512/H512, saying venues and consumers have reported deceptive reseller tactics, speculative listings and steep markups. She said the bill would "ban the theft of intellectual property from venues," require clear labeling of resellers on platforms, bar speculative tickets, and cap resale at 110% of the original price (face value plus fees).
Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council explained definitions that matter for enforcement: "resale" includes any second or subsequent sale by any method; "reseller" can include individuals and platforms. The bill requires secondary exchanges to conspicuously state whether a ticket is sold by the original issuer or by a reseller, and to disclose that a statutory price cap applies. If an exchange posts availability messages, the bill would bar misleading statements about how many tickets remain.
The price cap is expressed as a ceiling: a reseller shall not offer a ticket for more than 110% of the original ticket price, where "price" includes taxes, fees and charges paid in the initial purchase (but not shipping). Counsel noted the cap would technically apply to a private individual reselling their ticket; the committee discussed whether to exempt occasional, noncommercial individual sales.
The bill also bars deceptive domain names and misuses of venue trademarks that imply endorsement or affiliation, and makes speculative ticket listings unlawful. Violations are treated as unfair and deceptive acts under consumer‑protection law; private rights of action remain possible, and the Attorney General's office would have enforcement authority.
Committee members asked for comparative research on how many other states have similar caps and how the cap interacts with platform fees and venue contracts. Counsel also flagged drafting issues about a contractual exception where a ticket issuer contracts with a reseller or platform to resell tickets at a higher price; the AG asked for clearer drafting authority if that exception is retained.
