A bill that would have required venues, artists and promoters to disclose ticket availability information in Connecticut was killed by a deadlocked vote in the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee Monday, April 12.
The committee vote ended in a 20-20 tie, despite the above mentioned transparency language being stricken from the bill in a last ditch effort to get other, less controversial provisions passed. Without a simple majority, the bill does not move forward; four members of Judiciary Committee were absent and did not vote.
If approved, the bill would have put Connecticut in the forefront of states by requiring transparency in event ticketing and preserving an open resale market.
Last month, the legislature’s General Law Committee gave the bill overwhelming support, but in the time between that vote and Monday’s action, opponents of the bill marshaled their forces and lobbied hard to get it defeated. Among those who opposed the bill were several Connecticut venues, including the XL Center and the Shubert Theater in New Haven, and many of the unions that represent employees in those arenas.
Their opposition crystallized against the provision that required venues and others to disclose the total number of tickets available for an event, how many of those tickets would be released to the public and how many seats were lost due to logistical elements such as stage and sound design.
The opponents argued that requiring such disclosures could drive major acts and theatrical companies to bypass Connecticut for shows, instead opting for New York and Boston where they would not be forced to provide such information.
State Rep. Mike Lawlor, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, told TicketNews that the final vote “took a lot of people by surprise,” but that leading up to the decision “a whole bunch of lobbying from both sides” muddied the waters of discussion.
“Because this was a new concept, things got complicated and confusing for members of the committee, and for many of them it became easier not to do something than to do something,” he said.
Every Republican on the committee voted against the bill, and they were joined by nine Democrats.
Lawlor, a Democrat who supported the bill, is a season ticket holder for University of Connecticut football games, but while he has not bought or sold tickets on the secondary market, he believes people should have the right to do so. Included in the defeated bill were provisions to protect consumers and ticket resellers if they bought or sold a ticket, and also a law banning the use of computer software that can bypass online security protocols to scoop up large blocks of tickets before the public can get a chance at them.
“It’s a legitimate issue, and one that may come back for discussion next year,” Lawlor said of the bill, HB 5228. “On a superficial level, I think a lot of committee members felt comfortable with it, but then we were told that some promoters would never book acts in the state if the bill passed. And, that tends to scare some people.”
6 Comments
Comments are closed.
The fact that the venues, promoters, artists, Ticketmaster, etc. lobbied against having to disclose information about how many tickets are released and where the other ones went says a lot about their desire to keep certain information away from the public. They’re hiding something from us and apparently need it to stay that way.
The argument that acts would bypass the state if disclosures were required is weak. If the paying public in CT will fill up an arena, the artists will want their payday. It’s a shame they scared the lawmakers into believing it.
Any consumer who thinks this bill ultimately protect them needs to think again. This bill would help ticket brokers. Gee if my job was to buy tickets at cost and then price them for as much as I could get, wouldn’t it make my life easier if I knew exactly how many tickets there were?
In a perfect world with no greedy brokers this would protect consumers, but in the real world all it would do would help brokers figure out how to price their ill gotten gains.
The same applies to all the brokers cying out for “consumer rights to resell their tickes”, yeah who do they really care about.
How many tickets are released for public sale and how many are held back is fairly irrelevant to a broker in terms of pricing. Brokers care about how many tickets are for sale on the secondary market (which any fool is privy to just by looking at the resale websites), how many are left from the primary agent, (which will never be known), vs. how many people are still wanting seats, (which is a guess). Forcing the promoters to divulge the hold-back information simply helps to prevent brokers from being used as a scapegoat for the reason why “real fans” can’t buy a seat. Promoters and fans love to say “brokers bought all the tickets”, which is never, ever true, (brokers buy 5%, maybe 10% of the tickets at most). So, yes, brokers would like the law because it will show that the promoters, artists, venues, and Ticketmaster aren’t the victim in the world of ticket resale.
I’m not sure why you say “greedy” brokers, and “help broker figure out how to price their ill gotten gains”. What do you have against the free market system used in our country? Why can real estate brokers and auto brokers make money, but ticket brokers cannot?
By the way, it would be good for consumers to be able to sell a ticket they cannot use. It would be good if Ticketmaster wasn’t the only place that could allow and profit off the resale of a paperless ticket. It would be good if person could buy a paperless ticket as a gift and not have to actually go to the show, (especially if it’s Justin Beiber). And, whether you realize it or not, about 40% of tickets on the resale market actually sell for LESS than their face value — isn’t that good for consumers?
You are an obvious moron. Your job is more than likely toll taker or sanitation worker. You certainly would not have the brains to be a ticket broker.
It is interesting to note that the only people out there that are interested in seeking legislation to create transparency in the primary market are the ticket brokers.
We should also initiate transparency in the secondary market as well. It’s always interesting to see thousands of tickets posted on stubhub and other sites weeks before any tickets are ever sold on the primary market.
You have certainly mastered the English language yourself. Maybe knowledge isn’t the key component to being a ticket broker after all.