Call for evidence outcome

Government response to the call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector

Updated 19 November 2025

Introduction 

Earlier this year, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) ran a call for evidence to seek views about pricing practices in the live events sector. DBT is responsible for consumer protection policy and DCMS is responsible for the live events sector. The call for evidence posed a range of questions about:

• how ticket pricing practices work in the live events market
• the impact of pricing practices on consumers
• whether the current consumer framework is sufficient to ensure that consumers are treated fairly

The call for evidence ran in parallel with a public consultation on the resale of live events tickets, which presented a series of proposals aimed at improving fairness for fans on the ticket resale market. The government has responded separately to the Putting fans first: consultation on the resale of live events tickets setting out our plans to introduce new legislation. 

Alongside the government’s work, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also undertaken a project to better understand how and when dynamic pricing is used across the UK economy, including the live events sector. The CMA published its findings on dynamic pricing on 20 June 2025.

Stakeholder views

This document sets out the government’s analysis of the responses submitted to the call for evidence. We received a total of 105 responses from a wide range of stakeholders, including consumers, campaign groups, ticketing platforms, promoters, venues, academic experts and industry bodies. The government is grateful to all those who took the time to engage with this process. 

Across the responses, several common concerns emerged:

• a perceived lack of upfront pricing transparency
• frustration with dynamic pricing (which is perceived to be widespread) and tiered pricing
• concerns about market concentration and vertical integration of ticketing platforms
• confusion about what ticket terms and conditions apply and who is selling the ticket
• dissatisfaction with routes to redress when things go wrong

Respondents differed in how they weighed the benefits and risks of these practices, but there was a strong consensus that greater clarity, oversight, and fairness would help to improve consumer confidence when buying tickets for live events. Overall, the responses demonstrate that fans’ experiences of trying to purchase tickets for live events are often marked by a degree of confusion and frustration.

Our response

The government recognises that businesses must be able to employ whatever pricing or commercial strategy suits their business needs. Against a backdrop of rapidly evolving business practices and consumer behaviours, the government’s job is to ensure consumers have the protections they need to allow them to easily and accurately compare prices to make informed purchasing decisions. 

Transparency throughout the purchasing process is paramount. Businesses are required by law to give fans clear and accurate price information before purchase, free from undue pressure or other manipulative tactics that could influence their decision. These principles have been lynchpins of consumer law since before online ticketing became mainstream, and they continue to apply today. 

Based on current evidence and given price transparency is already enshrined in consumer law, the government does not intend to bring forward new legislative proposals on pricing practices in the live events sector. We do not think new legislation would materially change the obligations on businesses to make prices clear and are concerned that further regulatory measures could impose unsustainable burdens on the many small and medium-sized live events businesses that are the bedrock of live events in the UK. 

However, the strength of feeling among fans and consumer advocacy groups demonstrates that the ticketing industry must do better to earn the trust of the dedicated fans that sustain the live events sector.

The government expects businesses in the sector to treat the evidence set out in this document, and the CMA’s findings on dynamic pricing, as an incentive to act. The CMA has published clear, practical guidance for businesses using dynamic pricing about which business practices could be problematic and how businesses can ensure their customers are properly informed. Where businesses fall short of the law, the CMA now has powerful enforcement tools – including fines of up to 10% of global turnover – to ensure those businesses can be penalised. 

The government will continue to monitor the industry’s performance in this area, including how it responds to the CMA’s findings and practical advice. The outcome of the CMA’s investigation into Ticketmaster sends a clear signal to all ticketing platforms that fans must have access to clear and timely pricing information with accurate ticket descriptions, especially where there are different pricing models and queuing systems in use.  

We also welcome the commitment from the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers (STAR) to convene the sector for further work to establish best practice on ticketing, including price transparency. We expect those involved in the development of new guidance to take account of the findings of this call for evidence.  

More generally, this is an area powered by rapidly evolving technologies, and we will be keeping a close eye on pricing in this sector and more broadly to ensure technological development does not undermine the free, informed and competitive purchasing that drives any dynamic, innovative economy.

Call for evidence list of questions

This section sets out the questions that we asked in our call for evidence.

Question 1

Outline key changes to how tickets are priced, distributed and sold to consumers in recent years, for example on stages of release (such as pre-sales), any changes in role for different actors and pricing strategies (such as dynamic pricing) and use of technologies.

i. Fans/consumers: Has your experience of buying tickets changed either for better or worse in recent years?  

ii. Give examples of good or bad practice where relevant.

Question 2

To what extent do consumers find it beneficial when primary tickets are available across multiple ticketing platforms? We are interested in understanding if this approach improves consumer access, reduces queue times, affects pricing transparency, or provides a better overall purchasing experience. 

Question 3

Are there structural features of the live events market in the UK which impact on consumer experience and consumer choice?  

i. Specify how this relates to market structure or integration in different parts of the live events sector.

Question 4

Are consumers provided with sufficiently clear information about how and where they are able to purchase tickets for live events ahead of a sale?  

i. Describe how different websites, platforms or search engines play a role in informing consumer choices.  

ii. Fans/consumers: When purchasing tickets, are you clear on who you’re purchasing tickets from, for example is it the event organiser, a reseller or other?

Question 5

Are consumers provided with sufficient and clear information about ticket prices, including any additional fees, such as service charges or booking fees, when they are purchasing tickets on a ticketing sale platform?  

i. How, and at what point, are consumers provided with information about different and changing prices, included the use of tiered pricing, and dynamic pricing? 

ii. Provide details if there are specific improvements that could improve transparency and clarity. 

iii. Fans/consumers: When do you normally see the total price (including all unavoidable fees), for example, at the end of the checkout process, or when the price is first advertised to you on a website? 

iv. Provide details you think are relevant, including examples of good practice, and where improvements could be made to improve transparency and clarity.

Question 6

Are consumers provided with clear information about other elements of the ticket, for example, refund policies, restrictions on resale or transferability?  

i. Provide details on when and how is this information made available. 

ii. Provide details on this, including examples of good practice, and where improvements could be made.  

Question 7

Are developments in business models and the use of technologies (for example queuing systems or use of algorithms/AI) creating new risks for consumers?  

i. If so, what are these risks? 

ii. How might consumers be better protected?

Question 8

Are there specific risks to consumers associated with large scale live events with a high demand, that are not present in lower demand smaller events or other sectors? 

i. Provide details on these risks. 

ii. If applicable, provide suggestions on how these risks could be addressed. 

Question 9

How else could the existing consumer protection framework be made more effective?

Summary of responses 

This section sets out our analysis of the responses submitted to the call for evidence.

Rather than take each question in turn, our analysis has been grouped thematically to better reflect how the issues raised overlap and interact. Each sub-section highlights views presented in relation to that theme and identifies, where relevant, links to related work by the CMA – including the findings arising from its dynamic pricing project.

Price transparency 

A central theme emerging from the call for evidence was a concern about lack of transparency in relation to ticket pricing for live events. Many respondents reported that the full cost of tickets, including compulsory fees such as booking, transaction or delivery charges, and venue levies, was often not disclosed until the final stage of the purchasing process. In some cases, respondents reported that prices would increase by 20 to 40% from the initially advertised ‘from’ price, once all unavoidable charges were added, as noted in responses to question 5.

Responses to questions 1 and 2 also highlighted that the structure of fees varied significantly between platforms and sellers, making price comparisons challenging. The late introduction of additional costs, often just before payment, was cited as a source of frustration and confusion. A number of respondents also described inconsistencies between advertised ticket prices, for example on search engines or social media adverts, and the final checkout amount.

The practice of advertising prices from a low base was described as particularly misleading. For example, tickets might be promoted as “from £80” even though very few appeared to be available at that price. Several fans reported experiences of entering automated queues expecting a certain price, only to discover that the only available tickets were more than double the initially advertised amount by the time they reached the front.

The CMA’s dynamic pricing report emphasises that clear and accurate pricing information is vital for consumer confidence. It further states that failing to disclose material information, such as how prices are set or when they may change, could constitute a breach of consumer law (existing consumer price protections are set out in the conclusion). The CMA concluded that pricing practices must be sufficiently transparent to allow consumers to make informed decisions and highlighted the risks where there is limited visibility of how and when prices will change. This aligns with the views expressed in responses – particularly those highlighting that vague or partial pricing disclosures contributed to consumer distrust and reduced ability to plan purchases effectively.

Dynamic pricing and pricing strategies 

Many respondents expressed concern over the use of dynamic pricing in the live events sector. 

As the CMA’s recent report highlighted, there is no commonly agreed definition for dynamic pricing. For the purposes of this document, dynamic pricing can be understood to involve prices being adjusted rapidly and frequently – in ‘real time’ – in response to demand. There might be a degree of automation involved, and businesses might use algorithms or other advanced data analysis to inform price changes, drawing on real-time information. This section of the response will also refer to the broader category of ‘variable pricing’ which includes dynamic pricing as defined above, but also other approaches where the price may change during the consumer’s purchase experience. 

Submissions in response to the call for evidence, particularly in response to questions 1 and 5, highlighted that consumers were often unaware that what they believed was dynamic pricing (or potentially another form of variable pricing) was being used until prices had increased significantly beyond their expectations. In some cases, fans described joining virtual queues for tickets that had been advertised as “from £80” only to find that by the time they reached the front of the queue tickets were priced at over £200.

This issue was seen as particularly problematic where price changes were not explained or signposted, and where no caps or limits appeared to be in place to prevent excessive price rises. It should be emphasised that this phenomenon can occur when static but tiered pricing (where prices are decided before the sale but set at different levels, which sell out at different rates) is used. It is therefore not necessarily evidence of dynamic pricing. 

Several respondents referenced the sale of Oasis tickets in August 2024, where it appeared lower-priced standing tickets sold out almost immediately and remaining tickets were released at much higher prices. Concerns raised by fans in the aftermath of the sale prompted the CMA to launch an investigation on 5 September 2024. The CMA’s investigation identified concerns about potential breaches of consumer law, specifically:  

• Ticketmaster did not tell fans waiting in lengthy queues that standing tickets were being sold at 2 different prices, and that prices would jump as soon as the cheap tickets sold out

• Ticketmaster sold some ‘platinum’ tickets at almost 2.5 times the price of ‘standard’ tickets – without sufficient explanation that these offered no additional benefits over some ‘standard’ tickets in the same areas of the venue

On 25 September 2025, the CMA announced that it had secured undertakings from Ticketmaster requiring it to improve how it provides pricing information before and during online ticket sales. The CMA’s investigation has now closed, though Ticketmaster must report regularly to the CMA over the next 2 years and failure to effectively implement the undertakings could result in further enforcement action by the CMA.

While the CMA’s investigation identified transparency concerns, it did not find evidence that Ticketmaster used an algorithmic pricing model to adjust ticket prices in real time. This may be evidence of a wider phenomenon, whereby a lack of price transparency and clarity over the operation of a sale can cause fans to perceive that real-time, algorithmic dynamic pricing is in use, where in fact it is not. 

The CMA’s finding that some businesses in the live events sector are increasingly using dynamic pricing does not necessarily support fan respondents’ perception that dynamic pricing is widespread or ubiquitous, as is already the case for air travel or hotels. This emphasises the critical importance of price transparency, to ensure consumers are clear about the price they will be asked to pay and – where variable pricing is in use – how that price may vary.

Information and disclosures 

A recurring theme in the responses to the call for evidence was the limited and inconsistent information provided to consumers about the terms and conditions of ticket purchases. Responses to question 4 highlighted that it was often unclear in advance of sales how and where tickets would be made available. Many respondents described having to consult multiple websites, social media channels, or fan forums to understand sale timings, pre-sale access arrangements, or even whether the event was sold out.

The information presented at the point of sale was also described as inadequate. Responses to question 5 reported that the identity of the seller – whether an authorised primary platform, a third-party distributor, or a resale platform – was often obscured.  

Responses to question 6 drew particular attention to the way refund and resale terms are presented. Among responses, some platforms were praised for having accessible plain English policies on refunds or event cancellations. However, many consumers said they did not receive details of refund rights or transferability until after purchase, by which point it was too late to change their decision. Others said that while such terms were technically available to view, they were buried in lengthy terms and conditions or appeared only after navigating away from the main ticket page.  

This lack of timely, clear disclosures risks breaching consumer protection law, which requires that key terms including resale restrictions and refund policies must be disclosed prior to an “invitation to purchase”. The CMA has emphasised that for markets to function effectively, consumers must understand what they are buying and on what terms, yet the call for evidence responses suggest this is not consistently the case in the live events sector. 

Responses also indicated that the language used to describe pricing strategies could be misleading. For example, terms like ‘platinum pricing’ or ‘premium release’ were sometimes used without a clear explanation, making it difficult for consumers to understand how prices were set or why they varied. Respondents to question 6 argued that this obscurity created a lack of trust in platforms and made it harder to compare options.

Platform practices and vertical integration 

A number of responses addressed concerns around platform conduct, particularly in relation to vertical integration and market dominance. These themes emerged strongly in questions 1 and 3, which asked respondents to reflect on recent structural changes in the ticketing market and their impact on consumer outcomes. 

Respondents highlighted that major platforms often operate as both primary sellers and secondary marketplaces while also being linked to promoters and venues. This vertical integration was said to create perverse incentives such as releasing tickets at below market face value on the primary site only to allow high volume resale on an affiliated secondary platform. Some fans alleged that platforms or promoters may deliberately withhold tickets during initial sales and then release them at a higher price point later, sometimes via the same company’s resale platform. These concerns were repeatedly raised in relation to high demand events such as large stadium shows. 

In question 5 several respondents noted that consumers were not always able to identify whether a platform was authorised by the artist or primary seller to sell or resell a ticket or was instead operating as an unauthorised resale site. This confusion was sometimes exacerbated by online search engine results that prioritised paid placement rather than verified ticket sources, resulting in unauthorised sites appearing more prominently in search results than primary platforms and/or authorised resellers. 

There were calls for platforms to play a greater role in preventing large scale touting, especially where resale caps are not enforced or sellers are allowed to list multiple tickets with limited scrutiny. A minority of platforms such as Twickets and the fan-to-fan arm of AXS were cited as examples of good practice, particularly for offering capped resale and/or requiring identity verification. 

Overall, respondents questioned whether competition is functioning well in this market. The CMA has highlighted, in its own work on dynamic pricing, that when pricing complexity is combined with a lack of competition, consumer detriment becomes more likely. Some respondents argued that oversight of vertically integrated platforms might require specific regulatory interventions to ensure consumer interests are properly safeguarded.

Use of technology and queuing systems 

Many stakeholders discussed the increasingly complex role that technology plays in the ticketing experience. In responses to questions 1 and 7, several fans highlighted frustration with online queuing systems that gave the illusion of fairness but often resulted in poor outcomes. Consumers described spending long periods in virtual queues, only to discover that ticket prices had risen sharply by the time they reached the front, which they tended to ascribe to dynamic or tiered pricing. 

There were particular concerns about lack of transparency around how inventory is allocated and sold. Some described drip-feeding tactics where platforms release a small tranche of tickets at a low advertised price to create hype, before moving quickly to higher-priced tiers. This practice may not meet the CMA’s definition of dynamic pricing (which requires real-time adjustment in response to demand) but produces similar effects. The CMA dynamic pricing project notes that where price escalation is not clearly explained, consumers may feel misled or under pressure to act quickly. 

Respondents also highlighted the ability of bots to circumvent queueing systems and hoard tickets for resale. One platform reported blocking over 40 million bot attempts in a single month, underscoring the scale of the problem. Fans and consumer groups said more needed to be done to distinguish genuine consumers from automated scalping tools. Some called for stronger requirements on platforms to disclose their anti-bot measures or to delay the issuance of digital tickets until close to the event to limit resale. 

A number of responses recommended greater standardisation across platforms regarding how queuing is managed and how pricing tiers are communicated. Others felt that algorithmic decision-making if not subject to human oversight, could lead to unfair or unpredictable outcomes for consumers, particularly those unfamiliar with the pace and volatility of digital ticket sales.

Consumer risks and detriment 

The call for evidence elicited a broad range of concerns around the risks consumers face in the ticketing market, particularly when buying tickets for high demand events. For questions 1, 5 and 8, respondents highlighted how a combination of opaque pricing, fast moving sales processes, and confusing platform structures, created conditions ripe for consumer detriment. 

Financial detriment was most commonly cited. Fans reported paying significantly more than expected due to hidden fees, dynamic price increases, or misrepresented ‘from’ prices. Several said they felt compelled to pay inflated prices out of fear that tickets would otherwise disappear – mirroring the CMA’s concern about the potential for consumers to feel  pressured to make quick decisions because prices may rise suddenly. Some respondents also raised concerns about speculative tickets, where sellers list tickets before they have acquired them, posing risks of non-delivery or fraud – a practice also considered in response to the consultation on the resale of live event tickets. 

Emotional and psychological stress was another key theme. Several fans described feeling anxious or panicked during the buying process, especially when forced to make quick decisions with limited information. Others reported missing out on desired tickets altogether despite extensive preparation. These frustrations were often compounded by perceptions that professional touts have outmanoeuvred ordinary fans through bots or insider access. 

Respondents also suggested that certain groups may face disproportionate disadvantage. These included older consumers, those with lower digital literacy, and fans with disabilities, who may not be able to participate effectively in fast-paced online sales. Some called for specific protections for alternative access channels to ensure fairer distribution. 

The overall picture that emerged is of a market where many consumers feel disempowered and poorly protected. While not all forms of detriment amount to legal harm, the accumulation of poor experiences raised questions about the adequacy of consumer protection in the sector.

Enforcement, oversight and redress 

Many respondents expressed concern that even where the legal framework is broadly adequate, enforcement in the ticketing sector remains weak. This was a dominant theme in responses to question 9 which asked for views on strengthening the existing consumer protection framework. But it was also echoed across responses to other questions where consumers described unresolved complaints, misleading information, or lack of accountability when things went wrong. 

Many respondents felt that regulatory oversight was fragmented. In particular, they highlighted the difficulty of identifying which authority is responsible for enforcing rules in the ticketing sector, especially given the involvement of multiple actors such as event organisers, venues, primary platforms, secondary platforms, and third-party sellers. Some respondents questioned whether existing bodies, including local authority Trading Standards and the CMA, had sufficient capacity to intervene quickly or effectively, particularly where harm is cumulative rather than resulting from a clear breach of law.

Question 3, which asked about structural features of the market, also revealed a perception that dominant, vertically integrated platforms may be less likely to be held to account due to their scale and market power. Several respondents suggested that existing regulators are not equipped to oversee actors who act simultaneously as event organisers, venue operators, ticket sellers, and resale platform owners, creating conflicts of interest and blurring lines of responsibility.

In response to question 9, some stakeholders, including consumer groups, called for the introduction of a designated oversight body or task force focused on live event ticketing, with powers to monitor:

• pricing practices
• platform behaviour
• touting activity

Others suggested that the CMA be resourced to take on a more active role, particularly now that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) has introduced direct enforcement powers.  

Several responses argued that enforcement should be proactive and strategic, not purely complaint led. Respondents cited past examples (including CMA investigations into secondary platforms and National Trading Standards past enforcement activity) as useful but insufficiently frequent. Others called for more public facing guidance on consumer rights including clear information on how to raise complaints and seek redress when misled. 

Concerns about redress were raised not only in response to question 9, but also through consumer experiences highlighted in questions 5 and 6, where fans described paying higher fees for events that were later cancelled or rescheduled, sometimes without timely or full refunds. This pointed to a broader concern that redress routes are inconsistent or unclear, particularly when purchases occur via resale platforms or third-party sellers. A few responses noted that when things go wrong, consumers often face confusion over whether to approach the platform, the venue, or the original organiser, especially where terms and conditions are not clearly stated. 

In responses to question 7, some respondents linked the growing use of opaque algorithms and automated pricing to a lack of meaningful accountability. For example, if an algorithm inflates prices, or if consumers are misled about availability due to technical systems (such as drip releases or unclear queuing mechanisms), it is not always obvious who is responsible or whether consumers have any route for challenge. 

A small number of industry stakeholders expressed confidence that the existing framework is broadly fit for purpose. However, most respondents across sectors agreed that more effective oversight, clearer accountability, and swifter enforcement would help restore trust in the ticketing market. A few also welcomed the new CMA powers under the DMCCA, but cautioned that their impact would depend on resourcing, clarity of remit, and political will to intervene in what is often seen as a fast-moving, highly commercial space. 

Some fan groups and campaigners also argued for the government to consider statutory resale price caps or platform obligations, suggesting that platforms should take more responsibility for who is allowed to resell and at what price, and should be accountable for the consumer experience they offer. This issue is addressed in the government’s consultation on the resale of live events tickets.

Conclusion 

The responses to our call for evidence demonstrate a groundswell of concern among fans about pricing practices in the live events sector. Live event tickets sales are distinctive events, often operating over a short time, attracting high demand and generating strong emotions from passionate fans.

In this unique context, a combination of differing pricing approaches, unclear or incomplete information about tickets and the use of queuing technologies is creating confusion, frustration and distrust among fans. It is also costing fans hard earned money that they would have spent otherwise if they were empowered to make the right choice for them. 

Free and informed consumer choice is the cornerstone of competitive markets. In order to choose the product that best suits their needs, consumers must have all the relevant information in a form they can understand. They must also have the right conditions – free of undue pressure or manipulative tactics – to evaluate that information and make the right choice for them. Consumers’ legal rights must reflect and serve these imperatives. 

This is why consumer law centralises transparency. The recently implemented DMCCA (in section 230, which built on existing protections) requires businesses to tell consumers the total price of their product when they invite consumers to buy it. This ensures not only that fees cannot be dripped throughout the purchase process, but also that consumers should not be surprised by a change in the price at checkout. The DMCCA likewise:

• restates existing protections that prohibit businesses from misleading consumers during the transactional process either actively or by omission
• makes it an offence to unduly pressure a consumer in a way that significantly limits their ability to make an informed decision

As a result, the government does not believe further legislation – beyond the recently implemented DMCCA – is needed to ensure prices are clear. Concerns about the use of variable pricing, and in particular dynamic pricing, seem to stem from consumers not being provided with obviously important information, resulting in them being misled. Any business using variable pricing should be clear that transparency is the keystone. It is wholly unacceptable that some consumers are being enticed into lengthy purchase journeys only to find that the price at checkout is vastly higher than they expected.

The CMA in its project on dynamic pricing identified similar potential concerns about consumers being unaware about the pricing model used and/or pressured to make quick decisions by sudden fluctuations in price. It set out general guidance on what information consumers should be told. It also set out tips for businesses to help them do the right thing by their consumers where they propose to use dynamic pricing. This guidance relies on the existing law, and the CMA did not recommend legislative changes to deal with the issue of dynamic pricing.

In response to fans’ clear demonstration of their discontent, and the CMA’s new guidance, the government expects the live events industry – and particularly those involved directly in ticket sales – to take decisive action. We note the valuable role that the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers (STAR) has already played in facilitating cross-industry initiatives to improve consumer confidence and make ticket buying safer.

We welcome STAR’s commitment to convene the sector, including but not limited to its members, for further work to establish best practice that ensures:

• ticket prices – and pricing strategies – are clear upfront
• fans are empowered to make informed purchase decisions, free from undue pressure  

This work should be taken forward as part of STAR’s co-ordination of the sector to produce new guidance on industry-led action, in response to the government’s consultation on secondary ticketing. 

Of course, even where the legal framework is comprehensive, speedy and tough enforcement is vital. In response to the sale of Oasis tickets last year, the CMA promptly launched an investigation into Ticketmaster’s practices. In March 2025, the CMA publicly highlighted its concerns that Ticketmaster may have breached the law around both the:

• lack of information fans were given about price tiers
• potentially misleading description of ‘platinum’ tickets

After consulting with Ticketmaster on those issues, the CMA secured undertakings on 15 September 2025 requiring Ticketmaster to improve how it provides pricing information before and during online ticket sales. Addressing the key issues that aggrieved fans during the Oasis sale, these undertakings include:

• telling fans 24 hours in advance if a tiered pricing system is being used
• providing more information about ticket prices during online queues
• not using misleading ticket labels 

Failure to effectively implement the undertakings could result in further enforcement action by the CMA.  

The CMA’s enforcement action in this case, and the measures agreed with Ticketmaster, send a clear message to all ticketing websites that fans must have access to clear and timely pricing information with accurate ticket descriptions, especially where there are different pricing models and queues in play. In future, the CMA will be able to respond even more swiftly and robustly (including imposing fines of up to 10% of global turnover) to breaches of consumer law, following the introduction of its new enforcement powers under part 3 of the DMCCA.

Where the government believes there is inadequate legal protection – in relation to touts monopolising primary sales and overcharging genuine fans for the right to attend events – we are taking decisive action, as set out in our response to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets. We believe tackling the scourge of touting will improve fans’ experience of primary ticket sales, which will no longer be distorted by the false urgency created by bot attacks. Moreover, the knowledge that capped price tickets will be available on the resale market may reduce the pressure fans feel when faced with the decision of whether to purchase a ticket during the primary sale. 

Regarding concerns raised by respondents about wider competition issues, such as the roles of vertically integrated platforms, as already set out, the government has no plans to introduce further regulatory interventions in this sector. The government has ensured that the CMA has powers to investigate and take action against businesses that breach competition law, including by abusing a dominant position in a market.

Where appropriate, the CMA is also able to look at entire markets to identify where there are opportunities to make them better for consumers, businesses and the whole economy. The CMA uses its published prioritisation principles to help decide whether to act; and in areas where it has discretion, the government’s strategic steer asks the CMA to prioritise interventions that are supportive of productivity and growth.

While we pursue the measures identified, the government will continue to monitor this areas closely to ensure new developments in practices and technology do not undermine consumer protection. We will also continue to engage with both industry and consumer and fan groups to ensure the measures we are taking are having the desired effect.

Further information

Email: ticketing@businessandtrade.gov.uk or write to:

Consumer Protection Team

Department for Business and Trade
Old Admiralty Building
Admiralty Place
London
SW1A 2DY