Connecticut Lawmakers Pitch Ticketing Overhaul With Dueling Bills

Two new bills under consideration by the Connecticut General Assembly could bring sweeping changes to the state’s ticketing and live entertainment industries. House Bill 7182, which focuses exclusively on ticketing reforms, and House Bill 6858, which includes ticketing provisions among other consumer protection priorities, each had committee hearings recently. Testimony from consumer advocates, venue operators, and industry stakeholders revealed broad support for more transparent ticket markets, while also surfacing a few key points of contention.

Connecticut’s legislative push for ticketing reforms arrives on the heels of a major antitrust lawsuit filed against Live Nation Entertainment by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2024, a case that Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined alongside a bipartisan coalition of Attorneys General from around the country. That lawsuit alleges Live Nation’s extensive control over venues, performers, and Ticketmaster has unfairly squeezed both consumers and competitors. This context has heavily influenced testimony in support of limiting “monopolistic practices” in how tickets are sold and resold.

HB 7182: Ticketing Reform Front and Center

While HB 6858 contains some ticketing provisions, HB 7182 is the real focal point for overhauling how tickets are bought, sold, and transferred within Connecticut. Consumer advocates have largely praised the legislature’s intent to create a more transparent, competitive, and consumer-friendly environment. However, several proposed modifications to HB 7182 have become a focal point of discussion:

Improvements to “All-In” Ticket Pricing

Connecticut is already a state that requires consumers be shown a true “all-in” ticket price inclusive of fees during the ticket-buying process. But the rollout for this has been spotty – as some companies have chosen to avoid following the spirit of the law in order to try to gain a competitive edge over others that are complying.

“Being able to view the actual price to be paid without multiple clicks or entry of personal information is a commonsense improvement to make,” says TicketNetwork CEO Don Vaccaro in submitted testimony.

Some of the testimony centered around the fact that the proposed rule for “all-in” pricing proposed in HB 7182 goes further than the language of the Federal Trade Commission’s “Junk Fee Rule” which is set to go into effect in May, by mandating not only the total price but also a breakdown of all fees paid. That, some argued, would actually make the price display more confusing than a simple “all-in” total price.

Banning Exclusive Contracts

Under HB 7182’s current language, venues would be barred from entering into exclusivity deals with a ticket reseller. Many who testified pointed out that ticket exclusivity deals have been a major problem for consumers by leading to higher prices.

Live Nation Entertainment has been accused of using long-term exclusive ticket deals between its subsidiary Ticketmaster and venues in a way that harms competition significantly. Such deals essentially force artists and fans alike to use one service—often Ticketmaster—if they want to perform at or attend an event in that venue.

Advocates have suggested that exclusive contracts between venues and primary ticketing vendors are a key driver of the Live Nation Entertainment monopoly control over live events – since the same entity often owns or controls the venue, manages the acts, and controls the ticketing vendor, Ticketmaster. This control leaves artists with minimal control over their ticket prices and sales, leading to higher prices for consumers.

“Exclusive contracts seek to lock in a venue or artist into using only one primary ticketer,” says Brian Hess of the Sports Fans Coalition in submitted testimony. “This intentionally stifles competition and can lead to higher fees for consumers.”

Advocates suggested that rules banning such contracts – at least in venues which receive public funds, should be considered.

Prompt Ticket Refunds for Canceled Events

One section of the bill would mandate refunds for canceled events, but currently only puts that requirement on ticket resellers. Advocates want the language extended to primary ticket sellers as well.

Without that modification, consumers who purchased a ticket and then resold it because they could not attend the event could hypothetically get stuck having to refund the resale transaction months before they received a refund from the box office for the event.

Timely refunds have been the subject of controversy when events are cancelled for some time. Refunds drew a number of lawsuits against both ticket sellers and ticket resale companies in the wake of the sudden cancellation of all events related to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Before that, consumers actually had to file a lawsuit against Ticketmaster to be granted a refund of the tickets they purchased for the Route 91 Festival in Las Vegas in 2017, six months after the festival ended in a deadly mass shooting incident.

Eliminating Price Caps

A provision in HB 7182 proposes to cap ticket resale prices at 125% of face value. Almost all who submitted testimony related to the legislation to the committe suggested that the entire section be removed, arguing “fair markets” let fans decide what a ticket is worth. They point to new “all-in pricing” mandates—where the total price is displayed upfront—and say transparency, not caps, is the best consumer protection.

Testimony from Brianna January of the Chamber of Progress cited analysis from both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the CATO Institute which found that price caps of this nature had no definitive evidence of price camps impacting the availability of tickets for resale or lower prices. It also highlighted how such rules often actually harm consumers by driving them away from regulated resale marketplaces to black market spaces:

For instance, in June 2023, the resale restrictions for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in Australia highlighted how price caps drove fans to unverified websites and social media platforms, exposing them to scams and fraud. Police reports showed that over $260,000 was lost to scams related to counterfeit tickets for just one tour.
Fans who sought alternative channels were left without recourse when their tickets turned out to be fake, demonstrating how price caps can drive transactions into untrustworthy environments where consumer protections are non-existent.

HB 6858: More Consumer Protections, Ticketing Provisions

HB 6858 contains some overlapping ticketing language but is primarily a broader consumer protection bill spearheaded by Attorney General William Tong. It proposes measures around unfair trade practices, among other consumer-focused reforms. As with HB 7182, supporters say the ticketing provisions in HB 6858 dovetail with broader efforts to keep live events accessible and affordable.

Next Steps

Lawmakers are expected to release any revised text of HB 7182 and HB 6858 in the coming weeks, reflecting feedback from the hearings. HB6858 was reported as favorable by the committee, with HB718’s amended language expected to be voted on as such in the next week, though both bills could see further amendments or a merger before being sent forward to a floor vote, reflecting feedback from the hearings.

With broad political support for reining in perceived ticketing abuses—and a high-profile DOJ case against Live Nation serving as a backdrop—momentum appears to be on the side of increased transparency and consumer protections in Connecticut’s live entertainment market.