Technical corrections only. The changes between v3 and v4 are limited to updating congressional procedural information, such as the calendar number, dates of Senate action, and the clerk's name. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill text.
TICKET Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2025
Bottom line
This bill establishes federal standards for ticket pricing transparency, speculative ticket sales, and refund policies to protect consumers from deceptive practices in the event ticketing industry.
What it actually does
This bill mandates comprehensive price transparency for event tickets, requiring sellers to display the total 'all-in' price upfront, including all fees. It prohibits the sale of speculative tickets (tickets not in possession of the seller) and sets clear rules for disclosures regarding secondary market sales and affiliations. Furthermore, it establishes specific refund requirements for canceled or postponed events, aiming to enhance consumer protection in the ticketing industry.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill will protect consumers from hidden fees, fraudulent speculative tickets, and misleading affiliations, ensuring a fairer and more transparent ticket purchasing experience. They contend it addresses long-standing consumer complaints about the ticketing industry's opaque practices and provides much-needed clarity.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could increase operational costs for ticket sellers, potentially leading to higher base ticket prices or reduced flexibility in pricing strategies. Some secondary market sellers might also contend that the ban on speculative sales stifles their business model by restricting a legitimate market function, potentially limiting ticket availability for some events.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing readers to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications without requiring extensive background knowledge.
Section 2
All Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure
This section requires all ticket sellers, including primary issuers and secondary market entities, to clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in any advertisement, marketing, or price list. This 'all-in' price must be shown when the ticket is first presented to a buyer and throughout the purchasing process. Before completing a purchase, sellers must also provide an itemized list of the base ticket price and each individual fee.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for consumer protection, eliminating deceptive 'drip pricing' where fees are added late in the purchasing process. It empowers consumers to make informed decisions and compare prices accurately.
Critics contend
Some sellers might argue that displaying all-inclusive pricing upfront could make tickets appear more expensive initially, potentially deterring some buyers. They might also cite significant operational costs associated with overhauling existing pricing and display systems.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the consumer's right to transparent pricing against potential operational burdens for ticket sellers and the perceived impact on initial price perception.
Section 3
Speculative Ticketing Ban
This section prohibits ticket sellers from selling, offering for sale, or advertising event tickets that they do not actually possess. It includes an exception for services that help individuals obtain tickets, provided these services are clearly marketed as such, are distinct from actual tickets, and explicitly state that purchasing the service does not guarantee an event ticket.
Section 4
Affiliation and Resale Disclosures
This section mandates that any entity offering an event ticket for resale must clearly state that it is engaged in the secondary sale of tickets. It also prohibits ticket sellers from falsely claiming affiliation with or endorsement by a venue, team, or artist (e.g., using 'official' in marketing) unless they have a partnership agreement or express written consent. Furthermore, it bans the unauthorized use of a venue's name (including misspellings) in a domain name or subdomain.
Section 5
Refund Requirements
This section establishes mandatory refund policies for canceled or postponed events. For canceled events, a full refund of the total ticket price is required. For events postponed up to 6 months, if the original ticket is invalid, a replacement ticket in a comparable location must be provided. For events postponed for more than 6 months, the purchaser has the option of a full refund or a replacement ticket. Additionally, sellers must clearly disclose their guarantee and refund policies, including which fees are refundable, before a sale is completed, and explain how to obtain a refund.
Establishes that violations of the TICKET Act are considered unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC enforcement authority with its existing powers and duties.
Section 7
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to integrate new regulatory requirements into existing enforcement frameworks rather than creating entirely new enforcement bodies or mechanisms.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures robust enforcement by leveraging the FTC's established expertise, investigative powers, and ability to levy civil penalties, providing a strong deterrent against violations.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the enforcement mechanism itself, but those opposing the bill's substantive provisions would implicitly oppose its effective enforcement.
Estimated impact: This section provides the legal teeth for the entire bill, enabling federal action against non-compliant entities and ensuring the consumer protections outlined in the Act can be actively enforced.
Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress within 6 months of the Act's enactment. This report must detail the enforcement of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 (BOTS Act), including actions taken, challenges encountered, coordination with State Attorneys General, and recommendations for improving enforcement and industry compliance.
Section 6
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include oversight and review mechanisms, ensuring that existing laws are evaluated and that Congress receives information to inform future policy decisions.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this report ensures ongoing evaluation of existing consumer protection laws in the ticketing space, allowing Congress to identify gaps, assess effectiveness, and improve future legislation related to ticket bots and unfair practices.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against reporting requirements, though some might view it as an additional administrative burden on the FTC.
Estimated impact: Provides valuable data and insights for future legislative action regarding ticket bots and overall ticketing market fairness, indirectly supporting the broader goals of consumer protection in the ticketing industry.