By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new Massachusetts law grants ticketing companies like Ticketmaster greater control over ticket resales, restricting fans’ ability to transfer tickets to platforms other than the original point of purchase. This measure, included in the state’s Economic Development Bill, aims to curb ticket scalping by limiting the use of bots and other tactics employed by professional brokers. Consumer advocates oppose the law, arguing it harms consumers and inflates prices by forcing resales through the original vendor, often at a reduced value. Ticket resellers, such as StubHub, have criticized the law as anti-competitive.
Read the original article here
Massachusetts recently passed a law banning the digital transfer and resale of tickets on platforms like StubHub. This legislation aims to curb ticket scalping, but its effectiveness and overall impact remain highly debated.
The core issue seems to be the desire to prevent the inflated pricing associated with ticket scalping. A simple solution, often suggested, is to prohibit reselling tickets above their face value. This approach wouldn’t completely eliminate the resale market, but it would significantly reduce the profit incentive for scalpers. This would potentially make tickets more accessible to genuine fans.
However, the Massachusetts law takes a more drastic step: a complete ban on digital transfers and resales through third-party sites. This raises concerns about its practicality and fairness. Many argue that this approach does little to address the underlying problem of monopolies like Ticketmaster, which often control both the primary and secondary ticket markets.
The argument against the law centers on its potential inconvenience for legitimate ticket holders. What happens if someone unexpectedly falls ill and can no longer attend an event? The inability to transfer a ticket to a friend or family member seems unduly restrictive and potentially unfair. Simply gifting a ticket to someone becomes problematic under this new regulation, highlighting a potential flaw in the law’s design.
Another significant concern revolves around the impact on group ticket purchases. Buying tickets for a group of friends or family, only to find yourself unable to easily transfer the tickets electronically, creates a logistical nightmare. Imagine coordinating the entry of a large group at a concert or sporting event without the ability to pre-allocate tickets.
Furthermore, the law’s enforcement and practicality are questioned. While it may deter some scalping activity on major platforms, it doesn’t address the problem of in-person scalping or resale through other channels. This raises the issue of whether the law is simply shifting the scalping activity underground instead of effectively addressing the root cause.
The argument that this move strengthens Ticketmaster’s dominance in the market is a valid concern. By cutting out competitors like StubHub, Ticketmaster maintains its control over the entire process. The possibility of inflated fees on the Ticketmaster platform, while technically legal under the new law, is a very real outcome. This centralized control might lead to even higher prices for consumers. The concentration of power and subsequent ability to control pricing further entrenches the very monopolistic practices the law seemingly aims to combat.
The comparison to the airline industry is insightful. Imagine a similar ban on transferring airline tickets. The chaos and potential for inflated prices would be devastating. The current law’s potential impact on concert and event attendance is mirrored in the hypothetical airline scenario.
Some propose alternative solutions, such as a stricter enforcement of existing laws against scalping, rather than creating new, possibly flawed regulations. A focus on addressing dynamic pricing mechanisms employed by platforms like Ticketmaster could also be a more effective approach, potentially curbing price inflation without the need for a broad ban on digital transfers.
In essence, Massachusetts’ law, while intending to fight scalping, may inadvertently create more problems than it solves. The focus should likely be on dismantling monopolies, enforcing existing anti-scalping legislation, and addressing the core issue of dynamic pricing. A complete ban on digital transfers seems to be a blunt instrument that fails to address the deeper issues at play, and its long-term effects on consumers may be negative. The law’s unintended consequences could ultimately harm fans more than it protects them.