MAIN Event Ticketing Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 1, 2026
Bottom line
The bill strengthens anti-bot legislation and places new security and reporting obligations on primary ticket vendors to combat predatory ticket purchasing and protect consumers.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 2016 to expand the definition of illegal bot activity to include using automated tasks to circumvent posted online ticket purchasing rules. It imposes new requirements on online ticket issuers to implement and maintain security safeguards, enforce purchasing limits, report circumvention incidents to the FTC, and address the causes of circumvention. The bill also increases civil penalties for violations and grants the FTC explicit civil action authority.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential to protect consumers from predatory ticket resellers who use bots to snatch up tickets, driving up prices and making it difficult for average fans to attend events. They contend that strengthening the BOTS Act and requiring ticket issuers to enhance security measures will create a fairer ticketing marketplace.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill places an undue burden on ticket issuers through extensive security and reporting requirements, potentially leading to increased operational costs that could be passed on to consumers. Some may also contend that the increased penalties are excessive or that the bill's definitions could inadvertently impact legitimate secondary market activities.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)(C)
Expanded Prohibition on Automated Circumvention of Purchasing Rules
This provision expands the existing Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 2016 to explicitly prohibit using applications that perform automated tasks to buy event tickets from internet websites or online services if these applications circumvent posted online ticket purchasing rules. This includes software that bypasses access control systems, security measures, or other technological controls.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this closes a loophole in the original BOTS Act, making it more comprehensive in targeting the sophisticated methods used by bot operators to unfairly acquire tickets, thereby protecting consumers from inflated secondary market prices.
Critics contend
Some might argue that overly broad language could inadvertently criminalize or complicate legitimate automated processes used by some secondary market participants, though the focus on "circumvention of posted rules" aims to prevent this.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire to curb unfair bot practices with the need to avoid stifling legitimate technological innovation or secondary market operations.
Section 2(b)(1)
Mandate for Online Ticket Issuers to Enforce Site Policies
This provision requires all ticket issuers operating online platforms for event ticket sales to implement and maintain an access control system, security measure, or other technological control to enforce their posted event ticket purchasing limits. This aims to prevent bots from exceeding per-person or per-transaction ticket caps.
Section 2(b)(2)
Requirement to Establish Comprehensive Site Security Safeguards
This provision mandates that online ticket issuers establish, implement, and maintain reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their websites or services. It specifies considerations for these safeguards, including the issuer's size, scope of activities, sensitivity of customer information, and foreseeable security risks. It also requires procedures for third-party service providers to maintain similar safeguards and mandates regular updates to these measures.
Section 2(b)(3)
Mandatory Reporting of Bot Incidents and Consumer Complaint Website
This provision requires ticket issuers to report to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) any incidents of circumvention they have actual knowledge of, within a reasonable period, but no later than 30 days. It also mandates the FTC to create a publicly available website for individuals to report violations and requires the FTC to share these reports and consumer complaints with State attorneys general.
Section 2(b)(4)
Duty to Address Causes of Circumvention and Improve Security
This provision requires ticket issuers, upon gaining actual knowledge of circumvention incidents, to take reasonable steps to improve their access control systems, security measures, and other technological controls to address the identified causes of circumvention. This implies a continuous improvement cycle for security.
Section 2(c)(3) and (4)
Increased Civil Penalties and FTC Litigation Authority
This provision grants the FTC explicit authority to bring civil actions in U.S. district courts to recover civil penalties and seek other relief (including injunctive and equitable relief) for violations of either the bot prohibition or the new ticket issuer requirements. It establishes a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 per day for continuing violations and an additional $1,000 per violation, with an enhanced penalty of not less than $10,000 per violation for intentional violations.
The bill adds a new definition for "circumvention" to the BOTS Act, meaning "the act of avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing an access control system, security measure, safeguard, or other technological control or measure described in section 2(b)(1)." This definition is crucial because it clarifies what actions are prohibited under the expanded bot provisions and what ticket issuers are required to protect against.
Section 2(b) (new subsection (b) in the BOTS Act) and Section 3(4) (new definition in the BOTS Act of 2016)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions. However, its specific wording is critical for understanding the scope of the bill's prohibitions and requirements.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a clear, explicit definition of "circumvention" is necessary to provide legal clarity for both enforcement agencies and regulated entities, ensuring consistent application of the law.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition, despite its clarity, could still be interpreted broadly in practice, potentially encompassing actions not intended to be illegal or creating ambiguity for developers of legitimate software.
Estimated impact: High, as it directly shapes the scope of illegal activity and the security obligations of ticket issuers.
Requires the FTC to publish guidance for ticket issuers on compliance with the new security and reporting requirements within one year of the bill's enactment.
Section 2(b)(5)
Why it matters:This is a standard administrative instruction, often placed at the end of a section detailing new regulatory requirements. It's not intentionally evasive but could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents would argue that FTC guidance is essential to help ticket issuers understand and comply with the complex new security and reporting mandates, ensuring effective implementation and reducing compliance burdens.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against providing regulatory guidance, as it generally aids compliance. However, some might argue that a one-year timeline is too long, leaving industry in uncertainty.
Estimated impact: Moderately high, as clear guidance can significantly influence the effectiveness and cost of compliance for the entire industry.