Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears hours of split testimony on ticket‑resale bill that caps secondary-market profit at 10%
Summary
Lawmakers heard industry and consumer testimony on Senate substitute 2 for SB 181, which would cap resale profit at 10% above the original all‑in ticket price, ban speculative listings, require fee transparency and establish anti‑bot protections. Supporters said the bill protects venues and fans; marketplaces warned of enforcement difficulties. No vote was taken.
The House Economic Development, Banking, Insurance and Commerce Committee heard extended testimony on Senate substitute 2 for Senate Bill 181, a consumer‑protection measure aimed at secondary ticketing marketplaces.
The sponsor described the bill as protecting independent venues, nonprofit arts organizations and fans by limiting resale profit to 10% above the venue’s original “all‑in” price, banning speculative listings where sellers do not possess tickets, strengthening anti‑bot protections and requiring transparent pricing and fee disclosure. The sponsor said the Department of Justice participated in drafting the bill and that the legislation yielded no fiscal note.
Senator Ray Siegfried, the senate prime sponsor, told the committee the bill creates a private right of action in addition to allowing the Department of Justice to bring suits, and said giving individuals the right to sue reduced the department’s anticipated enforcement burden. He said restitution could be awarded to affected consumers and that courts may direct some recovery into the state consumer protection fund.
Supporters included independent venues and arts organizations. Katie Raymond, general manager of the Freeman Arts Pavilion, told lawmakers the secondary market frequently lists fake or fraudulently-marked-up tickets and cited online markups as high as 1,544% on a family event. Ron Ozer, a producer and executive director at the Arden Concert Guild, said a price cap is the only tool that has worked to stop bots and large-scale profiteering in some other jurisdictions.
Marketplace representatives pushed back. Joseph Garba, senior manager of government relations at StubHub, said price caps are “extraordinarily difficult to implement and enforce” because marketplaces often do not know what the initial buyer paid, and warned caps can push transactions to unregulated channels such as social media and offshore sites where fraud is rampant. Brian Berry of the Ticket Policy Forum, representing major ticket marketplaces, acknowledged support for transparency measures in the bill but said some states’ resale‑limit efforts have stalled.
Other witnesses urged clarifying language to avoid inadvertently covering movie theaters and small local businesses; Cinema United and independent movie‑theater owners asked for carveouts, saying the bill as written could impose compliance burdens on small cinemas. Consumer advocates (National Consumers League, Sports Fans Coalition, Fan Alliance) generally supported consumer-protection provisions but cautioned that a rigid 10% cap could have unintended consequences and recommended stronger enforcement resources.
No vote was taken on SB 181 at the hearing. With many members absent, the chair adjourned the session and said the committee would continue discussions and consider amendments at a future meeting.
