A substantive expansion of consumer protection measures. V2 adds a new prohibition in Section 4, preventing secondary market ticket issuers and exchanges from using venue names in their website URLs without authorization. A corresponding definition for "URL" is added in Section 8 to support this new provision.
TICKET Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 29, 2025
Bottom line
The TICKET Act aims to enhance transparency and consumer protection in the event ticketing market by eliminating hidden fees, banning speculative sales, and standardizing refund policies.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that all ticket sellers, including primary and secondary markets, display the total event ticket price upfront, including all fees, and provide an itemized list before purchase. It prohibits the sale of tickets that sellers do not possess (speculative ticketing) and establishes clear refund requirements for canceled or postponed events. Additionally, it requires disclosures about resale status and affiliation, and grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement authority.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill will protect consumers from deceptive practices, such as hidden fees and fraudulent speculative ticket sales, by ensuring clear, upfront pricing and reliable refund guarantees. They contend it will create a more trustworthy and transparent ticketing marketplace, allowing consumers to make informed purchasing decisions without unexpected costs or risks.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly some secondary market ticket sellers, might argue that the speculative ticketing ban could limit their business models and reduce ticket availability for highly anticipated events before official release. They may also express concerns that increased compliance costs and refund liabilities could lead to higher ticket prices or reduced innovation in the industry.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Sec. 2
All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure
This provision requires all ticket issuers, secondary market ticket issuers, and secondary market ticket exchanges to clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in any advertisement or price list. They must also disclose this total price at the first display to a potential purchaser and provide an itemized list of the base price and each fee before the purchase is completed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the widespread consumer frustration with hidden fees, allowing buyers to see the true cost of a ticket upfront and preventing bait-and-switch tactics.
Critics contend
Critics, particularly from some industry segments, might argue that displaying an 'all-in' price upfront could lead to initial sticker shock, potentially deterring purchases, even if the total cost remains the same as before.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances consumer demand for transparency against potential impacts on initial sales conversion rates for ticket sellers, who may prefer to show a lower base price initially.
Sec. 3
Speculative Ticketing Ban
This section prohibits ticket sellers from selling, offering for sale, or advertising event tickets they do not actually or constructively possess. However, it allows secondary market sellers to offer a 'service to obtain' a ticket on behalf of an individual, provided it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed that it is not an event ticket and does not guarantee a ticket.
Sec. 4
Resale and Affiliation Disclosures
This provision requires secondary market sellers to clearly state that they are engaged in the secondary sale of tickets before a consumer makes a purchase. It also prohibits any ticket seller from falsely claiming affiliation with or endorsement by a venue, team, or artist (e.g., using 'official' in marketing) without explicit written consent. An amendment further bans using venue names in URLs without authorization.
Sec. 5
Refund Requirements for Canceled or Postponed Events
This section mandates specific refund policies for ticket sellers. For canceled events, a full refund of the total ticket price is required. For events postponed for up to 6 months, a replacement ticket in a comparable location is offered if the original is invalid. If postponed for more than 6 months, purchasers have the option of a full refund or a replacement ticket. Sellers must also clearly disclose their refund policy and how to obtain a refund before a sale is completed.
Sec. 6
FTC Report on BOTS Act Enforcement
This section requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress within six months of the Act's enactment. The report must detail the enforcement of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 (BOTS Act), including actions taken, challenges in enforcement and coordination with State Attorneys General, and recommendations for improving enforcement and industry compliance.
Sec. 7
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Authority
This section stipulates that any violation of the TICKET Act will be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. This grants the FTC full authority to enforce the Act using its existing powers, means, and duties, including investigations, cease and desist orders, and civil penalties.
Allows secondary market ticket issuers or exchanges to offer a 'service to obtain' an event ticket on behalf of an individual, provided they do not market it as an event ticket, maintain clear separation from actual tickets, and conspicuously disclose that it is not a ticket and does not guarantee one.
Sec. 3(b)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include exceptions to general rules. This carve-out likely represents a compromise to allow certain business models to continue under strict transparency requirements, rather than being an evasive tactic.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision provides a necessary distinction, allowing legitimate concierge-like services to operate while still preventing deceptive speculative sales. It offers flexibility for businesses that help consumers acquire tickets, provided they are fully transparent about the nature of their service.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with disclosures, this exception could create a loophole that allows some entities to skirt the spirit of the speculative ticketing ban, potentially still misleading consumers who might not fully grasp the distinction between a 'service' and a guaranteed ticket.
Estimated impact: Maintains a specific business model for some secondary sellers, potentially impacting a segment of the market that relies on predicting demand and acquiring tickets for clients. Its impact on consumers depends heavily on the effectiveness of the disclosure requirements.
The definition of 'event ticket fee' explicitly excludes 'any charge or fee for an optional product or service associated with the event that may be selected by a purchaser of an event ticket.'
Sec. 8(6)(B)
Why it matters:It is standard for definitions to precisely delineate what is included and excluded. This exclusion is important for practical implementation, allowing sellers to offer additional services without them being bundled into the mandatory 'total event ticket price.'
Case for: Proponents argue this exclusion is necessary to prevent the 'total event ticket price' from becoming inflated with genuinely optional services (like ticket insurance or merchandise), which would obscure the core cost of the ticket itself. It allows consumers to clearly see the base price plus mandatory fees, while still having choices for add-ons.
Case against: Critics might express concern that this exclusion could be exploited if sellers design 'optional' services in a way that makes them seem mandatory or highly desirable, thereby still adding to the consumer's overall cost in a less transparent manner than if they were included in the initial 'all-in' price.
Estimated impact: Affects how additional services are presented and priced by ticket sellers, allowing them to be offered separately from the core ticket cost. This could influence consumer perception of the ticket price and their decision to purchase add-ons.
Prohibits secondary market ticket issuers or exchanges from including the name of a venue (or any misspellings) in a domain name or subdomain URL unless authorized by the owner of the venue.
Sec. 4(3)
Why it matters:This is a targeted anti-deception measure, likely included to address a specific type of online misleading practice where secondary sellers create URLs that mimic official venue sites. It's a specific detail within broader disclosure rules.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a vital measure to prevent deceptive online practices where secondary sellers create websites that appear to be official venue sites, thereby misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing directly from the venue. It protects intellectual property and reduces consumer confusion.
Case against: Secondary sellers might argue this restriction is overly broad and could limit their ability to market effectively, especially if they believe their use of a venue name in a URL is for descriptive purposes rather than deceptive intent. They might also argue it could be difficult to obtain authorization from all venue owners.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts the online marketing and presence strategies for secondary ticket sellers, requiring many to change their domain names or subdomains if they currently use unauthorized venue names. It is expected to reduce consumer confusion and protect venue brands.