US House of Representatives Passes TICKET Act To Create Transparency in Pricing (variety.com) 76
After bipartisan constituents introduced the Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act in June 2023, the United States House of Representatives passed the legislation this week in the ongoing efforts to reform the ticketing industry. From a report: The bill received a substantial amount of bipartisan support, passing 338-24. This comes after the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously approved the bill 45-0 in Dec. 2023. It will, of course, now need to move through the Senate before President Joe Biden signs it into law, and there is currently no floor vote in place for the measure.
If enacted, the TICKET Act will require ticket sellers to implement simple all-in pricing; ban speculative ticketing, where the seller does not have actual possession of the ticket; ban deceptive websites and website marketing; provide full refunds for any canceled event; offer comparable replacement tickets for any postponed event with buyers' approval; and require the FTC to issue a report on the BOTS Act Enforcement, which passed in 2016. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) and Gus Bilirakis (FL-12) introduced the legislation last year "to improve transparency in the entertainment industry by requiring all event ticket sellers to display the total ticket price -- including all required fees -- in any advertisement, marketing or promotional materials." It was meant to mirror advertising guidelines for airline tickets and have full transparency throughout the purchasing process.
If enacted, the TICKET Act will require ticket sellers to implement simple all-in pricing; ban speculative ticketing, where the seller does not have actual possession of the ticket; ban deceptive websites and website marketing; provide full refunds for any canceled event; offer comparable replacement tickets for any postponed event with buyers' approval; and require the FTC to issue a report on the BOTS Act Enforcement, which passed in 2016. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) and Gus Bilirakis (FL-12) introduced the legislation last year "to improve transparency in the entertainment industry by requiring all event ticket sellers to display the total ticket price -- including all required fees -- in any advertisement, marketing or promotional materials." It was meant to mirror advertising guidelines for airline tickets and have full transparency throughout the purchasing process.
Too narrow (Score:5, Interesting)
They should require all advertising to display the total price including all required fees. Why narrow it down to just ticketing events?
Re:Too narrow (Score:4, Insightful)
require all advertising to display the total price including all required fees. Why narrow it down to just ticketing events?
The providers always argue "our complex fee calculation system, and fees that vary per municipality/state/zip/street/block, makes complying with the advertising rule far too burdensome".
Except the companies Present it all as an Unreasonable advertising regulation. It never occurs to regulators and the corporations that their Long-standing fee system itself is the thing that is completely unreasonable.
I always thought there should be a simple solution: Advertisers may be allowed to Overestimate their fee by listing a price including the highest possible fee -- Any amount that is not an overestimate of the customer's cost must be the exact cost.
Re:Too narrow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I've been doing the last few years. I seen some killer bands at nice small venues.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree we got bigger problems but we can do more then one thing at a time. The only problem with this law is that it doesn't contain everything that is advertised, as others have pointed out.
Also, I'd let to point out, middle class isn't struggling to afford gas, bread and eggs. That's working class and poverty class. Heck, even as a working class slob, I'm not struggling to afford gas, bread and eggs but my extra money for entertainment is tighter then I like, though I'll be the first to say if I made 10%
Re: (Score:3)
We've got problems in the US with young people in huge debt, the education system sucks....what should be lower middle income families not being able to afford gas, bread and eggs....and the Feds big accomplishments are laws making fucking entertainment ticket prices "transparent"?
Seriously?
The only more laughable thing is...
... the flawed logic in your premise (an appeal to worse problems; aka. fallacy of relative privation; aka. children are starving in Africa argument).
* "young people in huge debt" - LOTS AND LOTS are being done for this. For example, see college loan forgiveness.
* "the education system sucks" - it's always a hot button issue with conflicting solutions, but the pandemic certainly put a dent in all of them. Hard to say no one is doing anything about this.
* "what should be lower middle income families not bein
Re: (Score:3)
...and the Feds big accomplishments are laws making fucking entertainment ticket prices "transparent"?
Seriously?
Heh. I'm guessing you missed the GOP's first priority when fixing Biden's high gas prices and inflation... Hunter Biden's dick pics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a straight forward singular solution that could be presented in an act that would fix "education system sucks". It's not that kind of problem.
If, instead, that was stated as, "schools lack the budge for basic supplies", that part of the issue *could* be addressed. But if it were only addressing that part of the system, you and cayenne8 would still bitch about the pols not tackling the complete/bigger problem(s).
Passing the buck and blaming the pols for not solving world hunger doesn't help. Iden
Re:Too narrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... but isn't it just *AMAZING* that when you get to the checkout page, or physical register, that complexity becomes trivial, not burdensome?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... but isn't it just *AMAZING* that when you get to the checkout page, or physical register, that complexity becomes trivial, not burdensome?
Right. "Complexity" is likely the wrong word. What they looking for is "price discrimination", that is, charging different prices to different people based on what you judge is their willingness to pay. That's a practice as old as haggling in the bazaar. They might not actually know the price until your actual browser lands on the actual listing page. Within reason, of course, they can't make this too blatant because people get upset.
This comes and goes. Remember when you bought a network card at Fry's and
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Fry's rebates... I too remember those days - skip out of work in the early evening, buy the local newspaper on Friday (or was it Thursday?), carefully read the Fry's ad, go buy stuff I suddenly discovered I needed, make sure to get all the rebate info/forms, and go back to work for a while.
At home, open toys/junk/stuff I really, really needed while carefully preserving the UPC. Check that they all basically work (returning w/a UPC code cut out wasn't very likely to happen).
Read all the requirements on t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so wouldn't be able to have the calculated price listed without having every calculated price in that area listed
You can target your internet Ads easily and automatically, thus it is Not an excuse. It's a trivial process to automatically fill in the correct price from a few lines of Javascript.
With newspaper Ads you List the names of cities within 100 miles and the Local price, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Too narrow (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they could just do what T-Mobile does with their cellular plans (At least they did when I had TMO), Apple does with iCloud, Steam does with their games, et cetera: Advertise and charge a single price to everyone everywhere and just accept the fact that the margin with some customers will be lower than the norm with other customers it will be higner than the norm.
Then just advertise the one, all-inclusive, price for everyone nationwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, you know, that it doesn't, because they already have the ability to do this at checkout, which means they have the ability to do it on the ticket selection page.
If you can't advertise it, how do you charge it? (Score:2)
Obviously there is logic somewhere to calculate the correct price to charge. It's not my fault if your advertising method can't handle it yet. Time for Google to work for all that ad money they receive.
Marketing should include more effort for the cost it adds to all our lives. And they'll never do more than is required of them. Just like employers. They're in a dominant position, and will be better at the process like negotiating salaries.
Re:Too narrow (Score:4, Insightful)
I always thought there should be a simple solution:...
Beware! "For any complex problem, there is an answer which is clear, simple, and wrong" -- H. L. Mencken (and if it wasn't Mencken, it should be).
If there's a long standing problem, before you propose a simple and obvious solution, you should ask "why does the complicated solution exist anyway?" No one actually likes complex solutions, they're a pain and extra effort to maintain. So why does TicketMeister go through the convenience fee shenanigans? Why not just negotiate with the artists on a ticket price, have TM take a cut off the top, and be done with it? Surely TM knows the convenience fee is the single biggest reason bile gets spewed in their direction. And it's a risky strategy to piss off your customers, they'll gleefully switch to a competitor the moment one shows any hope of providing better service.
I honestly don't understand either. My guess is it's because their real customer is the artist. Once you've signed the Eras Tour ticket deal, you can start smoking stogies. You know you'll sell every ticket so you don't have to please the fans. What you have to do is sweet talk Taylor into letting you do that. And maybe part of the sweet talking is agreeing to advertise a low sticker price.
There may be other reasons. But until you can explain why the system works the way it does now, and the incentives for everyone involved, I'm not confident you can propose an alternative that's better.
Re: (Score:2)
Beware! "For any complex problem, there is an answer which is clear, simple, and wrong"
There is always a simple famous quote about every subject that is also wrong.
You didn't add anything here... Only more reasons the feds should step in and regulate the advertising of the price more strongly.
No one actually likes complex solutions, they're a pain and extra effort to maintain
That's not true. Every other engineer, or so, likes complex solutions, as so long as it is the solution they themself invented.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you feel music tickets are something worthy
Because unfair and monopolistic business practices damage consumers, and it's the feds' job to police bad actors and monopolists from abusing the markets.
Or, I would think if she wanted, Taylor Swift with her enormous popularity and influence could take this on far better.
You don't seem to realize the scope of the issue.
Taylor Swift. would not have any say in this. She could protest in Private, but they got the artists trapped in their system.
Most ven
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, stop going. Voting with your feet is better than getting the federal government involved
Why is foregoing entertainment better than the government doing their job to quell a monopoly abuse?
Government intervention seems like a win, win win here.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, this is just going to be a big spectacle for politicians to
Re: (Score:2)
It's more the venue's choice than the artist's. But here's the rub; TicketMaster/LiveNation owns the venues
Re: (Score:2)
It's more the venue's choice than the artist's. But here's the rub; TicketMaster/LiveNation owns the venues
Yeah, that's what I heard the last time this came up. And that TM/LN can strong arm venues. "Nice venue youse gots here. Sure would be a shame if no one would sell your tickets." That's what I mean by the acts (and the venues) are the real customers, not the fans.
As I understand it, the dynamic is something like this. Taylor wants to play Madison Square Garden, Hollywood Bowl, and every other marque venue on the planet. A (large) number of those venues are owned by LN. LN agrees for the venues it owns on th
Re: (Score:2)
"why does the complicated solution exist anyway?"
because a) free markets do not spontaneously stay free, and b) powerful mercantilists mistake your loss from the complexity for their gain.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're doing is simple bait and switch. Bring people in with a low price and then upcharge them once they've already decided to buy. Sure, they can still refuse but they just got themselves excited about going to see a band they like when they hit "buy" so are less likely to object to the new higher price then if they had seen it before they decided to go to the show.
Surely TM knows the convenience fee is the single biggest reason bile gets spewed in their direction. And it's a risky strategy to piss off your customers, they'll gleefully switch to a competitor the moment one shows any hope of providing better service.
No artist can tour nationally in the US without ticket master anymore and they know it so they literally dont care if they piss their cu
Re: (Score:2)
What they're doing is simple bait and switch. Bring people in with a low price and then upcharge them once they've already decided to buy. Sure, they can still refuse but they just got themselves excited about going to see a band they like when they hit "buy" so are less likely to object to the new higher price then if they had seen it before they decided to go to the show.
That's absolutely the psychology involved. But you and I are smart. After the first dozen times, don't you realize there's going to be a 30% TM screw you fee? Yeah, it's a punch in the gut to see it but you can't say you didn't anticipate it.
True story: my wife and I were looking at tickets last week. We could buy some really good ones at about $240/seat but eventually gave it a pass. The final straw was the $65/seat service fee. So proof by demonstration some weirdos like me will in fact back out when they
I'm about to email my senators about that fact. (Score:2)
We don't have sales tax here, but ALL taxes and fees should be included in advertised prices. And if a range is necessary ($10-20) then so be it. I'd prefer a "usually $X" value then too.
Maybe all that detail only when in interactive form like on a web page or app that can be customized to show what they want, and hide what the customer doesn't want to see. Customers should have MUCH more control over how they're monetized (advertised at).
Re: (Score:2)
They should require all advertising to display the total price including all required fees. Why narrow it down to just ticketing events?
Because Ticketmaster hasn't paid their lobbying fees for this election cycle?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why set that broken bone if we haven't cured cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Why narrow it down to just ticketing events?
Because a Senator's 15 year old daughter complained after going to a Taylor Swift concert. You don't think they did this because it was a problem for The People do you?
About that (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering airlines are suing the administration [reuters.com] for having to disclose all their add-on fees becasue, and I quote, it would confuse customers, end quote, we'll see how far this gets.
One can only imagine the uproar from TicketMaster at having to disclose all its usuriuos fees to make a sale. Think of all the mayhem which would ensue if a grocer had to list every single item and its cost on a bill it gives to you. It boggles the mind how this proposed law can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
"Think of all the mayhem which would ensue if a grocer had to list every single item and its cost on a bill it gives to you. It boggles the mind how this proposed law can be done."
Re: (Score:3)
uh, pardon my ignorance, but, I do not know you... These two lines from your posting are sarcasm, yes?
I am a humor-impaired Aspie, and even I recognized it as sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the best kind of sarcasm, the kind you have to read twice
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh at first reading I definitely was like "what is this motherfucker talking about" and then "ohhhh"
Re: (Score:3)
Man that is some wild PR fluff in there:
"The airline group said in a statement on Monday the department's rule would confuse consumers and that its "attempt to regulate private business operations in a thriving marketplace is beyond its authority."
Oh yeah buying an airline ticket today is just so simple and straightforward. Don't change a thing guys. Whenever I have to shop for a flight the first thing I think of is "wow, what a thriving marketplace of options". Also airline travel is like the mostest int
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget ISPs pitching a major fit over having to disclose their fee structure [forbes.com] as well...
It's almost like rent-seeking predatory asshats don't like having their predatory fee structures dragged into the light of day...
Re: (Score:2)
why bills fail (Score:2)
A lot of very good bills in the US Congress fail for the simple reason that no one could think up for them a good acronym.
Hmmm... question (Score:2)
I don't get my tickets through Ticketmaster so apologies if this is way off base....
What exactly is the problem with what TM is doing? I assume tickets are sold via web site shopping cart and at the end there is my list of tickets and a final price which I see before I hit the BUY button and my credit card gets charged the number I saw before I hit BUY.
Is the issue that different people are charged different prices? That the number listed in ads doesn't match the final price in cart? Something else?
Pleas
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm... question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Hmmm... question (Score:2)
I think the issue is that, you see a face value price for the tickets when selecting them, then at the end right before checking out there are taxes, venue fees, transaction fees, convenience fees, fee collection fees, etc. added right before you complete the purchase. Your $50 ticket ballooned up to $80 with no value added.
I just picked numbers to illustrate the point...I haven't dealt with Ticketmaster in years.
Re:Hmmm... question (Score:5, Informative)
I don't buy tickets on ticketmaster either, but I *think* the problem is that they advertise a low price, and during the the checkout process they list the additional fees.
So you initially clicked on a $50 Taylor Swift ticket, but then...
a $15 'venue fee' because that venue charges for the usage of their facility, the original $20 was just payment for the Taylor Swift crew.
a $9 "destination fee" because based on your home address you are traveling to this concert and the local government has required payment from businesses that bring people to the local area.
a $12 "Local Tax" fee because the local government taxes ticket sales at a different rate
a $7 "venue security" fee because the $15 'venue fee' doesn't include security services and both Taylor Swift and the local government require hired security
a $8 "seat fee" because the default venue fee doesn't include assigned seating. So It's $8 per person, no matter what seat you choose.
When you clicked on the $20 Taylor Swift ticket at first, by the time you get to checkout, it's $101. But you've already spent 15 minutes poking around on your phone putting in your name, address, selecting seats, and so on. So when it adds these fees all at the end, you are emotionally invested in the concert.
Sure this is stupid emotional manipulation and people that can't control their emotions are the only real losers by not 'fixing' this. We've been telling young adults for the last 25 years to 'listen to their feelings' and this is what we get from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"this is stupid emotional manipulation and people that can't control their emotions are the only real losers"
The people that tell themselves they can't be emotionally manipulated are the easiest to emotionally manipulate.
That's great! Now do broadband. (Score:2)
The title really says all I had in mind -- but I'm sure there are other industries which entirely deserve this treatment as well.
Dear America (Score:2)
Unconstitutional (Score:1, Interesting)
The federal government has no legal jurisdiction over ticket prices at a local in-person event.
This law is a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very... let's say "skeptical" of government overreach, but even I can see the obvious "interstate commerce" nexus of a company headquartered in California, domiciled in Delaware, with physical distribution presences in Texas and West Virginia selling tickets to an event in e.g. Georgia.
Re: (Score:2)
Case law has already decided that the Commerce Clause applies to anything substantially affecting Interstate Commerce, even if some individual sales aren't across state lines.
But Ticketmaster is usually not based in the same state as the venue, and people do travel for events.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"By using threats of violence and other coercive tactics, abusers prevent abusees from travelling, including to other states, and by various means of financial control, prevent them from engaging in free commerce. Therefore, per the Commerce Clause, we are implementing a national law....."
Same logic as "growing your own food disrupts inter-state trade."
Re: (Score:2)
In the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, a sharply divided Court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue the accused in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the Court overturned the provision as exceeding the federal government's powers under the Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In 1857, case law decided that Dred Scott wasn't a person too.
Where Ticketmaster is located is irrelevant. If a person buys something at a given location and then attends an event at the same location, it's not interstate commerce.
Under these rules, the federal government is aggrandizing to itself the power to regulate, without limitation, any event where a ticket is sold in advance. That would include theater, films, sporting events, county fairs, school concerts, church events, trade shows and on and on a
Laws are great and all (Score:2)
Minnesota Did Similar (Score:2)
Minnesota recently passed a similar bill, requiring upfront pricing including all fees to be displayed from the start.
Bribes (Score:2)
How many senators will Ticketmaster have to ‘lobby’ to get this watered down to a nothing-burger.
After all, it’s the American way!
Do it for hotels... (Score:2)
If a hotel advertises a price (either in marketing/ads or as the price you initially see when you go to book on whatever site) that should be the final price including all the extra compulsory charges, government fees etc. No more hidden "resort fees" and other stuff that you only see after you go through all the booking steps.
Wow, zero regard for artists and promoters (Score:1)
Touring sound tech here, currently about 2000mi from home touring with an indie rock band in the midwest US.
Something everyone's missing is that artists and promoters are helpless to set the actual ticket price appropriate to the fan base of the region of an event, which will vary extremely by region/country/continent.
Meanwhile TM sees an event starting to sell well, jacks up its fees, bot operators scoop up remaining tickets to sell off at a mark-up so high they come out ahead even if they only sell 1/4 of
Re: Wow, zero regard for artists and promoters (Score:1)
Take Nickleback for example. I saw them in Vancouver before they were signed. They weren't bad, checked all the boxes, but nothing to write home about. Then they disappeared for 18 months, then suddenly a big label is hyping the crap out of the polished turds they became. That's not how art is developed, that's how the "Walmart rock" market was generated.