Ticket resale giants sue Washington DC over new law that caps scalper markups at 10%

[BadThad]

Oh my the comments.....

I find it rather amusing that we've reached a point where the government feels the need to protect consumers from their own wallets. Whatever happened to simply saying "No, I'm not paying that"?

Growing up, if something was overpriced, we closed our wallets and told the seller to pound sand. Today, people will practically offer up their firstborn for a video card, then complain that prices are out of control. Well, here's a thought...Stop paying those prices!

The market bears what consumers are willing to pay. If someone buys a concert ticket for $100 and another person willingly pays $500 for it, where exactly is the crime? Nobody forced that person to attend the concert, and nobody forced them to hand over $500.

Now, before someone starts screaming about scalpers, there's a distinction worth making.

If a reseller legitimately buys 500 tickets to a venue with 50,000 seats and manages to sell them at five times the original price, that's business. He took the risk, found willing buyers, and made a profit.

But if someone corners the entire supply, uses bots to circumvent purchasing limits, or deliberately manipulates access to tickets, that's a different discussion. That's where competition and fair market practices deserve scrutiny.

And let's not pretend the original ticket sellers are innocent bystanders here, either. Between dynamic pricing, service fees, and the enormous influence of companies like Ticketmaster, there's plenty of room to question how competitive this industry really is.

But here's what bothers me most about this legislation.

Why is the original seller allowed to charge whatever the market will bear, while the person who legally purchased the ticket is suddenly told how much profit they're allowed to make?

Are we protecting consumers, or simply deciding who gets to pocket the profits?

We've been fighting ticket scalping for over a century. Putting a government mandated ceiling on resale prices doesn't magically create more seats, eliminate demand, or guarantee that tickets end up in the hands of ordinary fans.

Protect consumers from fraud. Enforce the laws against bots and deceptive practices. Address genuine monopolistic behavior. Absolutely!

But protecting people from voluntarily making expensive purchases? That's where I draw the line...

At some point, personal responsibility has to enter the conversation.

If someone wants to spend $1,000 to see their favorite performer, that's their business. Personally, I'd rather keep my thousand bucks and listen to the music at home. And if enough people did the same, those resellers might discover something politicians seem to have forgotten...

The most powerful price control mechanism in a free market isn't a government regulation. It's a consumer who knows when to close their wallet.

Big government SUCKS! We don't need them to "take care of us", I'd prefer they just go away entirely. Leave the free market alone!

 

[Northy]

There's good reason why this sort of parasitic behavior is illegal in many countries.

Some people don't get it though, seemingly the ones who don't actually go to concerts and games and have found themselves with only the option to pay 5x face value on tickets.

I bet x5 any money that the people expressing that profiteering off fans, without providing any service, is just freedom, can't remember the last time they went to an event.

 

[Loadedaxe]

There's good reason why this sort of parasitic behavior is illegal in many countries.

Some people don't get it though, seemingly the ones who don't actually go to concerts and games and have found themselves with only the option to pay 5x face value on tickets.

I bet x5 any money that the people expressing that profiteering off fans, without providing any service, is just freedom, can't remember the last time they went to an event.

Interesting response, but you've managed to avoid an actual argument entirely.

Whether I, or someone else attended a concert last Tuesday or haven't attended one in 20 years has absolutely nothing to do with how supply and demand work.

You call reselling tickets at a profit "parasitic behavior." Fine, you're entitled to that opinion. But calling something parasitic doesn't explain why two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to agree on a price.

And the claim that resellers provide no service? They provide access to tickets that may otherwise be unavailable, along with a secondary market where people can sell tickets they no longer need. You can certainly argue those services aren't worth five times face value, but apparently some buyers disagree.

Now, if brokers are using bots, circumventing purchase limits, or cornering the market to eliminate competition, we have a legitimate issue worth addressing. Many people already made that distinction.

But if someone legally purchases a ticket for $100 and another person voluntarily pays $500 for it, why exactly is that the government's responsibility?

Here's a question for you...

If consumers willingly pay five times the original price, is the problem exclusively the person charging it, or do the people paying it bear some responsibility for sustaining those prices?

And before you respond, whether anyone attends concerts is irrelevant. We're discussing economic principles, not someone’s weekend entertainment schedule.

 

[Northy]

Interesting response, but you've managed to avoid an actual argument entirely.

Whether I, or someone else attended a concert last Tuesday or haven't attended one in 20 years has absolutely nothing to do with how supply and demand work.

You call reselling tickets at a profit "parasitic behavior." Fine, you're entitled to that opinion. But calling something parasitic doesn't explain why two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to agree on a price.

And the claim that resellers provide no service? They provide access to tickets that may otherwise be unavailable, along with a secondary market where people can sell tickets they no longer need. You can certainly argue those services aren't worth five times face value, but apparently some buyers disagree.

Now, if brokers are using bots, circumventing purchase limits, or cornering the market to eliminate competition, we have a legitimate issue worth addressing. Many people already made that distinction.

But if someone legally purchases a ticket for $100 and another person voluntarily pays $500 for it, why exactly is that the government's responsibility?

Here's a question for you...

If consumers willingly pay five times the original price, is the problem exclusively the person charging it, or do the people paying it bear some responsibility for sustaining those prices?

And before you respond, whether anyone attends concerts is irrelevant. We're discussing economic principles, not someone’s weekend entertainment schedule.

This topic is not about people reselling personally owned tickets. Even in countries where scalping is illegal people can sell their own tickets as they see fit.

The implementation on limiting profit is because of the many ways that scalpers acquire large amounts of tickets and prevent punters from buying them at face value. So rather than creating a huge trove of complicated technical laws that will no doubt be worked around they just cut to the chase... you can't profit from scalping anymore.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[Loadedaxe]

This topic is not about people reselling personally owned tickets. Even in countries where scalping is illegal people can sell their own tickets as they see fit.

The implementation on limiting profit is because of the many ways that scalpers acquire large amounts of tickets and prevent punters from buying them at face value. So rather than creating a huge trove of complicated technical laws that will no doubt be worked around they just cut to the chase... you can't profit from scalping anymore.

It's really not that complicated.

Actually, it is a little more complicated than you're making it out to be.

First, you might want to read the legislation we're discussing. D.C.'s RESALE Act defines resellers broadly, and its 10% markup restriction doesn't simply exempt individuals selling their own tickets. The law distinguishes larger commercial resellers for licensing purposes, but that's not the same thing.

Second, I agree that brokers using bots, circumventing purchase limits, or manipulating ticket availability deserve scrutiny. I've said that from the beginning.

But you're assuming that restricting the profits automatically fixes the problem. Does it?

If a concert has 20,000 seats and 100,000 people want tickets, limiting resale prices doesn't create another 80,000 seats. It doesn't eliminate demand, and it doesn't guarantee that ordinary fans will get tickets at face value.

It simply restricts what those tickets can legally sell for afterward.

Now consider something else. The original ticket seller can charge substantially more when demand is high, but a secondary seller is restricted to a 10% markup. Why is one form of profiting from demand acceptable while the other requires government intervention?

And here's the question you keep dancing around...

If someone legally acquires tickets without circumventing any rules, and another person willingly pays five times their original price, what exactly makes that transaction something the government needs to prevent?

You keep returning to how unscrupulous brokers obtain tickets. That's a legitimate concern, but it's a different issue from whether a voluntary resale price should be controlled.

I'm not defending fraud, bots, or market manipulation. I'm questioning why the solution must include telling consumers what they're allowed to pay and sellers what they're allowed to charge.

You say it's not complicated. Perhaps not, if we ignore the distinction between preventing unfair practices and controlling prices.

Making a profit isn't automatically proof of wrongdoing, and charging a price someone dislikes isn't the same thing as forcing them to pay it. Just ask Nvidia!

 

[Northy]

Actually, it is a little more complicated than you're making it out to be.

First, you might want to read the legislation we're discussing. D.C.'s RESALE Act defines resellers broadly, and its 10% markup restriction doesn't simply exempt individuals selling their own tickets. The law distinguishes larger commercial resellers for licensing purposes, but that's not the same thing.

Second, I agree that brokers using bots, circumventing purchase limits, or manipulating ticket availability deserve scrutiny. I've said that from the beginning.

But you're assuming that restricting the profits automatically fixes the problem. Does it?

If a concert has 20,000 seats and 100,000 people want tickets, limiting resale prices doesn't create another 80,000 seats. It doesn't eliminate demand, and it doesn't guarantee that ordinary fans will get tickets at face value.

It simply restricts what those tickets can legally sell for afterward.

Now consider something else. The original ticket seller can charge substantially more when demand is high, but a secondary seller is restricted to a 10% markup. Why is one form of profiting from demand acceptable while the other requires government intervention?

And here's the question you keep dancing around...

If someone legally acquires tickets without circumventing any rules, and another person willingly pays five times their original price, what exactly makes that transaction something the government needs to prevent?

You keep returning to how unscrupulous brokers obtain tickets. That's a legitimate concern, but it's a different issue from whether a voluntary resale price should be controlled.

I'm not defending fraud, bots, or market manipulation. I'm questioning why the solution must include telling consumers what they're allowed to pay and sellers what they're allowed to charge.

You say it's not complicated. Perhaps not, if we ignore the distinction between preventing unfair practices and controlling prices.

Making a profit isn't automatically proof of wrongdoing, and charging a price someone dislikes isn't the same thing as forcing them to pay it. Just ask Nvidia!

The title of the article is the point, you're making it into something it's not. It's only the scalpers and their enablers who are upset irl.

 

[Loadedaxe]

The title of the article is the point, you're making it into something it's not. It's only the scalpers and their enablers who are upset irl.

Perhaps you should read beyond the headline, because the article is about considerably more than scalpers being upset.

It's about a law restricting resale prices, a lawsuit challenging that law, and whether those restrictions actually benefit consumers or create an advantage for primary ticket sellers.

The article specifically discusses Ticketmaster's position, the exemption for primary ticket sales, competition, and the potential consequences of pushing resale transactions into unregulated markets.

Those are legitimate issues whether you like scalpers or not.

And here's something you seem to be overlooking: the law's resale price cap isn't limited to professional scalpers. It also affects ordinary ticket resales.

You keep reducing the discussion to scalpers versus everyone else, as though questioning a government regulation automatically makes someone a supporter of scalping.

That's not an argument. That's labeling people instead of addressing their points.

I've repeatedly distinguished between legitimate resale transactions and brokers who manipulate the market. Apparently, that distinction keeps getting lost with you.

So I'll ask again...And I guess I will use bold text...

If two people voluntarily agree on a price for a legitimately acquired ticket, why should the government determine what that price is allowed to be?

You can dislike scalpers all you want. That still doesn't answer the question.

And perhaps that's the problem with judging an issue by its headline. You end up arguing against a position nobody actually took.

 

[Northy]

Perhaps you should read beyond the headline, because the article is about considerably more than scalpers being upset.

It's about a law restricting resale prices, a lawsuit challenging that law, and whether those restrictions actually benefit consumers or create an advantage for primary ticket sellers.

The article specifically discusses Ticketmaster's position, the exemption for primary ticket sales, competition, and the potential consequences of pushing resale transactions into unregulated markets.

Those are legitimate issues whether you like scalpers or not.

And here's something you seem to be overlooking: the law's resale price cap isn't limited to professional scalpers. It also affects ordinary ticket resales.

You keep reducing the discussion to scalpers versus everyone else, as though questioning a government regulation automatically makes someone a supporter of scalping.

That's not an argument. That's labeling people instead of addressing their points.

I've repeatedly distinguished between legitimate resale transactions and brokers who manipulate the market. Apparently, that distinction keeps getting lost with you.

So I'll ask again...And I guess I will use bold text...

If two people voluntarily agree on a price for a legitimately acquired ticket, why should the government determine what that price is allowed to be?

You can dislike scalpers all you want. That still doesn't answer the question.

And perhaps that's the problem with judging an issue by its headline. You end up arguing against a position nobody actually took.

Two people can do what they want behind closed doors, they can literally trade sexual favors for tickets. No one can stop them. It's predatory tickets reselling platforms making the lawsuit, it's a multibillion dollar scam that's finally coming to an end.

Primary ticket sellers are collecting money for event organisers and keep a percentage, they actually provide a service, they are not competing with scalpers. That's clearly false narrative being pushed by lawyers trying to muddy the waters.

It's obvious you are not effected by the issue or you might have a position greater than hypothetical freedom that you would never be restricted by.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Two people can do what they want behind closed doors, they can literally trade sexual favors for tickets. No one can stop them. It's predatory tickets reselling platforms making the lawsuit, it's a multibillion dollar scam that's finally coming to an end.

Primary ticket sellers are collecting money for event organisers and keep a percentage, they actually provide a service, they are not competing with scalpers. That's clearly false narrative being pushed by lawyers trying to muddy the waters.

It's obvious you are not effected by the issue or you might have a position greater than hypothetical freedom that you would never be restricted by.

You keep arguing about whether scalping is bad, while I'm questioning whether this particular legislation is the appropriate solution. Those aren't the same argument.

And your claim that primary ticket sellers provide a service while secondary marketplaces don't is interesting, considering Ticketmaster operates in both markets. Secondary marketplaces also provide ticket listings, payment processing, transfers, and buyer protections. Whether their fees and business practices are reasonable is certainly debatable, but claiming they provide no service is simply incorrect.

The legislation exempts primary ticket sales from its resale price cap. That raises a perfectly legitimate question about competition, regardless of which companies are bringing the lawsuit.

And no, the fact that somebody hasn't personally experienced a particular problem doesn't invalidate their understanding of economics or their right to question a law. By that reasoning, nobody should have an opinion about anything that hasn't personally happened to them.

You see scalping as the problem. I'm looking at the bigger picture, including the difference between preventing abusive business practices and regulating voluntary transactions, and the unintended consequences those regulations can have on everyone involved.

Both issues can exist simultaneously.

What I find interesting is that you've repeatedly explained why you dislike scalpers, which I understand, but still haven't addressed why the government should regulate the price of a legitimately acquired ticket sold between willing participants.

Disliking a business practice doesn't automatically establish that every proposed regulation is effective, necessary, or free of unintended consequences.

At this point, I can see that you're not understanding the broader argument I'm making, and this discussion seems to be turning more argumentative than constructive.

I've tried several times to explain that this issue goes beyond scalpers. It affects consumers, legitimate ticket holders, resale marketplaces, competition, and potentially the primary ticket sellers themselves.

You seem focused entirely on punishing scalpers, while I'm questioning the wider consequences of the legislation on everyone involved.

There's a difference between looking at one problem and examining the consequences of the proposed solution.

So rather than continue going in circles, I'll leave it here. We're clearly looking at the same issue from two very different perspectives.

And perhaps that's the irony of this entire discussion...we both recognize there's a problem, but you're focused on who's causing it, while I'm asking whether the proposed cure might create problems of its own.