NIVA exec calls for truly ‘enforceable’ US ticketing bill

National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) executive director Stephen Parker has told TheTicketingBusiness that there needs to be a ticketing bill in the US with “teeth” to really protect consumers and live music fans.

Last month, the latest iteration of the TICKET Act was marked up and passed by the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The bipartisan Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act would mandate all-in and upfront pricing, and establish refund requirements. It would also crack down on misleading websites and deceptive URLs, ban deceptive ‘speculative’ ticketing, and require clear distinction between tickets for sale and ticket procurement services. The act would also require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to study 2016’s BOTS Act and its enforcement to date.

The bill’s reintroduction in 2025 follows its original inclusion in the stopgap spending bill in December last year. This Continuing Resolution (CR) spending bill was signed into law by then-President Joe Biden to avoid a government shutdown – without the inclusion of the TICKET Act.

This iteration of the bill in December faced pushback from the Fix The Tix Coalition, which includes venues, promoters, record labels and artists, as well as organisations such as NIVA. The coalition believed it was a watered-down version of what was agreed earlier in 2024.

“There was a version that we were okay with, but for the most part, the version that made it into the December broad 1,500-page omnibus bill – that was ultimately pulled by the Speaker in our House of Representatives – was one that we could not live with,” Parker explained to TheTicketingBusiness.

“This is because there have been strong bans on speculative tickets that have passed in five states. Right now, there are 40-plus state bills related to ticketing that are being considered by the state legislatures that have been introduced in the last two months.

“So the states, because of our system of federalism, have chosen to act because Congress has not enforced the BOTS act for example. And so, we don’t want anything that passes at the federal level to get in the way of what states have done and what they plan on doing.”

In particular, the Fix The Tix coalition and NIVA were concerned about a loophole around so-called ‘concierge’ services.

“The loophole on concierge services was problematic,” continued Parker.

“It is concierge services in how they have traditionally been done prior to the last few years – there’s nothing wrong with that. We believe that consumers should have access to concierge services, but the problem is that there is a prominent company in the US called Vivid Seats that calls what they do ‘concierge services’, but what it actually is, is speculative tickets, and not concierge.

“They are listed in the same place where other tickets are listed. In some cases, they are not even labelled as concierge. And if that’s concierge services, we oppose it. And those are the types of services that would have been permitted in the bill that almost made it into law in December.”

Vivid Seats describes itself as a marketplace that utilises its technology platform to connect millions of buyers with thousands of ticket sellers across hundreds of thousands of events each year.

Fix The Tix and NIVA would like to see clarification within concierge or procurement services, in particular that existing tickets can not be listed alongside concierge tickets. Sellers would need to ensure a clear distinction between in-possession tickets and pay-now-procure-later shopping services.

“We think that there should be clarification that you are not guaranteed a ticket. We think that there should be clarification that this is the service and not a ticket. We don’t believe that the language in there is strong enough to protect consumers from the likes of Vivid Seats, and other potential platforms,” said Parker.

The latest version of the bill would also help to tackle deceptive URLs, which means that scalpers would not be able to use the name of the venue or artists, or anything related to the event, in the URL to make it seem like an official website.

“They [the government] could go a step further and make it so that you can’t use unauthorised intellectual property or images of the venue, or copying the venue or box office’s website, or the artist’s image, but it is a step in the right direction and one that we can ultimately live with,” commented Parker.

Should any bill pass in the future, Parker hopes to see genuine action to protect consumers in the ticketing space.

“There has to be substantive guardrails in place for federal agencies, particularly the FTC that is likely going to be implementing any bill that passes Congress on ticketing,” said Parker.

“They have to have the resources, they have to have fines at their disposal, and they have to have the structure in the bill in order to make sure that they can actually enforce any law that passes. And that includes giving state attorneys general the ability to enforce this federal law.”

“We want to see a bill that can be enforced, and we want to see a bill that actually has teeth and actual consumer protections – not loopholes.”

Moving forward, Parker felt that the bill was calling out for minor tweaks so as to not wind up like 2016’s BOTS Act [Better Online Tickets Sales Act], which has only been enforced once.

“It is not ready to pass, but does not need substantive work done. There are minor tweaks that absolutely have to be done in order for these bills to actually protect consumers, and make sure that the artists, the venues, and the workers that put on these shows are taken care of,” said Parker.

“Right now, the bills that could potentially move – it’s definitely the scalper groups and resale platforms that want to see that bill pass, because there’s not substantive enforcement in there. There’s not substantive protections in regards to concierge services in there.

“They want this bill to pass because it would probably end up a lot like the BOTS Act. We don’t want to see that.

“We want to see a bill that can be enforced, and we want to see a bill that actually has teeth and actual consumer protections – not loopholes.”