Consumer groups worry Massachusetts’ new ticket transfer law will hurt event-goers

On By Littum

Consumer groups are worried Massachusetts event-goers will face “fewer protections and higher fees” after Gov. Maura Healey signed new restrictions on ticket sales and transfers that backers instead claim will help prevent exorbitant markups by scalpers.

Healey on Wednesday approved a sweeping economic development bill that includes a series of reforms to how tickets to concerts and other popular events are sold here, some of which had drawn scrutiny from groups that argued the language as drafted would provide greater sellers such as Ticketmaster.

The new law requires platforms to clearly disclose ticket prices online, and it bans the use of automated ticket-buying software, commonly known as “bots”.

It also allows any “theatrical exhibition, public performance, or public amusement or exhibition” to restrict the marketability of a ticket after purchase, as long as the restrictions are “clearly and conspicuously given to the consumer” before the sale and the customer acknowledges receipt of that information.

Deirdre Cummings, the director of legislation and consumer programs at MASSPIRG, called that last part “anti-consumer language.”

“When you buy tickets for concerts, sports or other events, you should be able to do whatever you want with them – including reselling them or giving them to friends or family. Ticket sellers should not have the right to prevent us from transfer our own. Requiring event tickets to be transferable is both important consumer protection and common sense,” Cummings said. “The big winners here are the big ticket sellers, not sports fans or concertgoers.”

Supporters of the language, however, argued that it merely adds transparency to a practice that already exists.

Some artists – like Pearl Jam, who performed at Fenway Park in September – prohibit most tickets for their concerts from being transferred, aiming to ensure that fans can get access at face value instead of competing with scalpers who would resell tickets at a high price.

Backers say the language recently on the books adds clearer disclosure requirements at the time of purchase but does not otherwise authorize a practice that had been banned.

“The only thing I see changing is if you get a non-transferable ticket, it will be displayed better,” said Sen. Barry Finegold, the Senate’s lead negotiator on the package. He later added, “I don’t see much change for 95 to 99% of how tickets are made.”

Finegold defended the transferability language as a way to add clarity for buyers and limit scalpers’ ability to resell certain high-demand tickets.

“The real driving force behind this is that there have been some acts like Noah Kahan, Taylor Swift (and) Billie Eilish who don’t want their tickets run up. They want their fans to get the tickets,” he said . “You can sell them back (to the original marketplace) so it’s not like you’re stuck with the ticket, but they want to get away (from) the tickets being marked two, three, four times.”

Representatives from MASSPIRG, the National Consumers League, Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America and the Sports Fan Coalition wrote to Healey on Monday urging her to increase the ticket transfer language. They argued that the proposal would effectively “codify into law anti-consumer event ticketing practices and further entrench Live Nation Entertainment’s (LNE) monopoly over the live event industry.”

The Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association, also made an unsuccessful push, calling on Healey to reconsider ticket resale provisions.

“This language allows Live Nation to bury anti-transferability provisions in terms and conditions that fans often quickly click through in their eagerness to purchase tickets to the next big event,” the group said in its own letter to Healey last week. “Worse, Live Nation could use ticket terms to force purchases to resell tickets exclusively on their own platform, further cementing their monopoly position in the live event ecosystem.”

Todd O’Boyle, the organization’s senior director of technology, urged lawmakers to “correct this anti-fan error” when the 2025-2026 term begins.

Cummings told the State House News Service that her only concern is the portability language, not the measures requiring price transparency or banning the use of bots.

She added that consumer advocates did not raise the alarm about the provisions until they reached Healey’s desk because they did not know about them in advance. Legislative negotiators unveiled the 319-page compromise bill — which differs in some sections from the versions that originally approved the House and Senate — on the evening of Nov. 12, and the package then won House and Senate approval on Nov. 14.

In their letter to Healey, the consumer groups pointed to an analysis by the Sports Fan Coalition that found Massachusetts fans saved $21 million buying tickets on secondary markets between 2017 and 2024.

“The only concern here, which is the biggest consumer protection, is the transferability of the tickets. It has been shown that if the tickets are transferable, overall ticket prices will come down because there are more options for consumers in terms of what they do with these tickets.” Cummings said. “You bought the ticket, you should be able to do whatever you want with the ticket.”

Before Healey signed the bill, activists argued that its language would conflict with Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s position in a multi-state and US Department of Justice antitrust case she joined against ticketing giant Live Nation.

They said the cases focus in part on “SafeTix,” a technology that prosecutors claim prevents Live Nation tickets from being transferred to competing resale platforms.

The consumer groups warned that the ticket resale language in the economic development bill would “undermine the AG’s case by implying that Massachusetts has tacitly approved these monopolistic practices.”

“By supporting SafeTix’s restrictive practices through this legislation, Massachusetts would be the first state to enact a policy that effectively blesses LNE’s anticompetitive practices,” they wrote. “This would set a troubling precedent that would undermine General Campbell’s ongoing efforts to curb monopolistic behavior in the industry.”

Some other states have pursued non-transferable ticket disclosure requirements, according to Finegold.

“You have to focus on the precedent and what has happened,” he said. “If you talk to a lot of Noah Kahan fans, they were able to go to shows this summer and not have to pay exorbitant prices.”