Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets

Updated 19 November 2025

Executive summary 

The UK has a thriving live events sector. Our major sporting and cultural events draw in fans from across the nation and all over the globe, generating billions each year for the UK economy. These events are also key to our social fabric – enriching lives, binding communities together and inspiring future generations of artists, performers and athletes.

This government recognises the importance of our live events sector and the brilliant cultural, creative and sporting communities that underpin it. That is why we have put the Creative Industries front and centre of our Industrial Strategy, publishing a Creative Industries Sector Plan that demonstrates our long-term commitment to the sector, and why we are investing in a strong pipeline of major sporting events across the UK over the next decade. 

For too long, however, access to live events has been undermined by ticket touts buying and selling tickets on a systematic and speculative basis – exploiting committed fans by charging vastly inflated prices on the secondary market and unfairly extracting value from the live events sector. 

The internet has enabled touts to operate at an ever-increasing scale and in a borderless way, armed by automated software which expedites the purchasing process and means ordinary fans are crowded out when tickets go on sale. This creates artificial scarcity on the primary market, often leaving fans with the choice of either paying huge mark-ups on the secondary market or missing out on events entirely. 

The government has been clear that this practice must stop. In our manifesto, we made a commitment to put fans back at the heart of live events by introducing new consumer protections in relation to the ticket resale market. Earlier this year, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) ran a consultation to establish the best way to bring about a fairer and more transparent ticket resale market that works for fans, while supporting the continued growth of the UK’s live events sector. DBT is responsible for consumer protection policy and DCMS is responsible for the live events sector. 

The ticket resale market should play an important role in helping fans find and resell tickets and ensuring that events are well-attended. When it works well, the secondary market helps to redistribute tickets between fans, allowing those who can no longer attend to give an opportunity to others, while recouping some or all of their costs. It can reduce the likelihood of tickets going unused, boosting attendance at venues. And when venues are full, it means more fans are enjoying experiences, creating a better atmosphere and more opportunities to sell merchandise, food and drinks.

Our approach

As we set out at the time, the government’s policy objectives in relation to the ticket resale market are as follows: 

• consumer protection – improving transparency and protecting consumers from misleading or harmful practices, and excessive resale pricing 

• access – improving access to live events for fans 

• transferability – ensuring that consumers have a safe and secure means to resell tickets where they are no longer able to attend or no longer wish to attend events 

• economic success and sustainability – ensuring revenue flows to the live events sector, and not to ticket touts seeking to capitalise on the popularity of live events 

Stakeholder views

Our consultation set out a series of potential proposals to improve the operation of the ticket resale market, in line with the above objectives. These included: 

• a resale price cap to restrict the price at which tickets for live events can be resold 

• making it unlawful for someone to resell more tickets for a live event than they are entitled to purchase under the terms of the original sale 

• increasing the accountability of secondary ticketing platforms in respect of tickets sold via their websites 

• strengthening enforcement, ensuring there is a strong deterrent against ticket touting and that unlawful behaviour is penalised

• exploring steps that could be taken by primary market participants to protect access for fans when tickets are originally sold

We were pleased to receive over 400 responses to the consultation, with feedback provided by fans, individuals working in the live events sector, live events businesses, ticketing platforms, trade associations, enforcement authorities, academics, parliamentarians and other representative organisations.

There was a strong sentiment expressed in response to the consultation that ticket touting should not be permitted, and that the government should take action to eliminate the financial incentives that currently drive this activity. Respondents were generally in favour of ticket prices being capped on the resale market to ensure someone reselling a ticket is able to recoup their costs but not able to profit from reselling the ticket.

There were some other clear themes amongst the responses: 

• genuine fans should be able to recoup their costs – either by reselling their ticket or through refunds – where they can no longer attend the event for reasons beyond their control

• effective enforcement was felt to be critical in ensuring any new rules have the desired impact

• resale platforms were highlighted as the main route to market for touts and therefore critical players in ensuring new rules are consistently implemented

• the primary and secondary markets were recognised to be interdependent, and many respondents called on primary sellers to go further, for example to protect primary sales or share information more seamlessly with resale platforms

• the role of search engines in directing consumers towards particular resale sites was said to be vital, with respondents emphasising the importance of blocking online access to non-compliant sites

Government response

Price cap for resale tickets

Having carefully considered responses, and following extensive engagement with stakeholders in recent months, the government intends to bring forward reforms to introduce a price cap that makes it unlawful to resell live events tickets for a profit. The government has determined that the price cap should not allow for any mark-up to be applied by someone reselling a ticket, over and above the original cost of the ticket (inclusive of unavoidable fees and delivery charges). This tallies with what we heard from respondents – that recouping the original costs should be sufficient incentive to resell a ticket, if someone can no longer attend an event or no longer wishes to go.

Resale service fees cap

To ensure the price cap works effectively, the government has determined that it will be necessary to also place a cap on the level of service fees that can be levied by resale platforms on resale transactions. Without this, it might be possible for platforms to inflate service fees in a way that undermines the price cap. The fee cap will need to be high enough to allow compliant platforms to operate sustainably and facilitate continued investment in their service offerings. We will continue to gather evidence on what the most suitable level is for the fee cap, and what options there are for future adjustments, before setting out the detail of our approach when we bring forward legislation.

Resale volume limits

To accompany a price cap, the government will introduce new limits which prohibit someone from reselling more tickets to an event than they were entitled to purchase from the original vendor. This will reinforce restrictions applied by event organisers which are intended to ensure fair access for a wide range of fans and prohibit resellers from buying up large numbers of tickets. 

Enforcement

Ticket touts currently rely on being able to use certain online resale platforms to market resale tickets widely to UK fans. Using uncapped platforms, they are able to list them at a significant mark-up, with an opportunity to generate vast profits. Since online resale platforms are the primary route to market for touts, it will be vital that these platforms operate in a way that supports the efficient and effective operation of new legislation. To facilitate this, the government intends to create strict legal obligations for resale platforms to ensure compliance with the price cap. We believe that this is the right approach to ensure platforms take the necessary steps to prevent tickets being listed on their sites that do not comply with the price cap.

The government recognises that new restrictions must be backed up by robust enforcement, to ensure that our policy objectives are achieved. That is why we will enable enforcement of these new prohibitions via the consumer enforcement regime established by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). The DMCCA allows for tough financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover and expedited powers for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to tackle certain consumer law breaches directly.

The government believes that the level of fines available under the DMCCA regime, which facilitates enforcement action against any trader that directs its activities at UK consumers, will serve as an effective deterrent to support compliance with new secondary ticketing laws. Though we have decided not to take forward a licensing regime at this time, this is something that the government will revisit should it appear that the consumer enforcement regime is not delivering satisfactory outcomes in relation to new ticketing legislation, once introduced. 

The government will legislate to implement the above reforms when parliamentary time allows. 

The remainder of this document is structured as follows: 

• Part 1 provides information about how the consultation was conducted, the number and type of respondents, and how the responses were analysed 

• Part 2 summarises the responses that we received to each of the consultation questions, including quantitative and qualitative insights

• Part 3 sets out the government’s response to the consultation, outlining the measures that we intend to take forward

Part 1: conducting the consultation

The consultation ran from 10 January 2025 to 4 April 2025. The consultation received 416 unique, usable responses from a range of individuals and organisations, as set out in Table 1. We are grateful for the time and effort that respondents committed to this process and for the written feedback they provided. 

During the consultation period, DBT and DCMS engaged with stakeholders through a series of roundtables, virtual meetings, and via email to ensure a diverse range of views were heard from different sectors.

Table 1: breakdown of responses

Stakeholder	Number of responses
Consumers/fans	308
Ticketing platforms	16
Live events businesses/organisations	31
Live events professionals	12
Enforcement authority/local authority	5
Consumer advocacy group	6
Other (including academics, parliamentarians and financial institutions)	38
Total responses	416

Methods of analysis 

Written consultation responses were analysed using mixed methods of analysis. Closed components of questions were analysed with standard dichotomous and multiple-choice quantitative techniques. Open-ended components of questions were analysed using qualitative techniques involving breaking the text down into categories, coding responses, and considering positive or negative sentiments to draw out common perspectives among the respondents.

Where respondents answered any of the questions to the consultation, even if this was only one question, these have been counted as responses to the consultation. Many respondents chose to answer one specific area of interest and then leave the other questions relating to different topics blank. Where respondents to the consultation only provided their name and/or email address and did not answer any questions posed in the consultation, these have not been counted as responses. Where respondents to the consultation inputted random data in response to questions (such as random letters that do not form words) these responses have also been discounted. 

This page provides a summary of the consultation responses received and the government response. It does not attempt to capture every point made in submissions to the consultation, nor does it cover comments on aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of this consultation. We have provided a high-level statistical summary of question responses where relevant.

Part 2: summary of question responses 

In this section, we outline the key themes identified in the responses provided to the questions that we asked in our consultation. Where relevant, we have presented both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Understanding the ticketing market (Q1) 

Part 1 of the consultation set out the government’s assessment of how the ticketing market works, and the role of the secondary ticketing market within this. We set out our views on the benefits of the secondary market and outlined a range of issues and concerns about the way that it currently operates. We asked respondents to share insights and evidence about the live events sector and the ticketing market, based on their experiences. 

Question 1

We invite you to share any additional information or evidence you have concerning the live events sector, the pricing of tickets in the primary market, and/or the impacts of secondary ticketing markets on consumers and the live events sector.

Total responses: 275

Question 1 was designed to gather any additional information or evidence from respondents that may help to improve the government’s understanding of the issues affecting fans in relation to the ticket resale market. 

Many respondents took the opportunity to voice their frustration about the difficulties they experience trying to obtain tickets for their favourite artists or other live events. Fans detailed their experiences of waiting for long periods in online queues and ultimately missing out on tickets, only to see tickets listed on the resale market at hugely inflated prices soon after. It was felt that ticket touts, armed with bots and other technologies, tend to crowd out fans when tickets originally go on sale, reducing the likelihood that fans are able to secure tickets at the price set by artists and event organisers. 

There were both positive and negative reflections about the secondary ticketing market. Some respondents spoke about the benefits of the ticket resale market providing a second chance to secure tickets where someone might have been unable to get tickets when they originally went on sale. Others reflected positively on the guarantees provided by certain resale platforms, describing circumstances where they had received refunds or a replacement ticket where there was an issue with a ticket they had purchased on the resale website. Several respondents praised the approach taken by fan-to-fan resale sites where prices are capped at a reasonable level.

On the other hand, several respondents complained about being ripped off when purchasing tickets on resale websites and sometimes being mis-sold tickets that had been listed with false information. Some respondents felt uneasy about how resale platforms often appear at the top of search engine results, which can lead to consumers buying resale tickets at an inflated price even when there are tickets still available on the primary market at lower prices.

There were concerns about the prevalence of ticketing scams, especially those originating on social media platforms and marketplaces. A number of respondents highlighted the need for ongoing consumer education to signal how fans can avoid being caught out by scammers. There was some discussion about whether increased regulation of the secondary market could make consumers more vulnerable to ticketing scams because of resale activity shifting to alternative channels. 

Some respondents raised concerns about the approach to selling tickets on the primary market. Many respondents said that they thought dynamic pricing (and other forms of variable pricing) was unfair, with a number of fans recounting their experiences of seeing higher than expected prices after queuing online to purchase tickets for certain live events or being advertised ‘premium’ tickets that do not provide any additional benefit over a standard ticket.

Several respondents called for greater transparency from primary sellers, with suggestions that ticket prices and volumes should be disclosed before they go on sale. It was felt that this would help fans to make informed decisions about whether to try to purchase tickets, especially where they might be responsible for trying to secure tickets for family and friends with different budgets. 

Other respondents questioned whether there was sufficient competition in the live events ticketing market and suggested that the dominance of a handful of very large ticketing companies might be leading to worse outcomes for fans. For example, a number of respondents felt that the service fees charged by major primary ticketing platforms were excessive, with the perception that fees had increased significantly in recent years – making it more expensive to attend live events. 

There were some concerns that the introduction of new regulations impacting the independent secondary ticketing market might create perverse incentives for large primary platforms to ultimately raise their prices. For instance, primary ticketing companies might decide to charge higher prices as a way of capturing some of the additional consumer surplus arising from stricter controls on pricing in the secondary ticketing market.

Tackling the incentives behind touting (Q2 to Q12) 

Part 3 of the consultation sought views about potential options for further government intervention to address the financial incentives that underpin the business model for organised touts. There were a range of questions posed about the design of a resale price cap and limits on the number of tickets that an individual can resell, as well as potential risks and unintended consequences associated with such measures. 

Question 2

What is the maximum uplift that you think should be applied if ticket resales were to be subject to a price cap? Please state the reason for your selection.

Total responses: 391 

• no uplift at all: 55% 

• 10% or less: 4% 

• between 10 and 20%: 5% 

• between 20 and 30%: 2% 

• other: 14%

More than half of respondents (55%) said that a price cap should not permit any uplift to be applied to the original price of a ticket (inclusive of unavoidable fees) when a ticket is resold. Respondents selecting this option agreed with the principle that the price cap should allow someone to pass on the service fees incurred during the original purchase but not allow someone to make a profit.

A common theme among responses was that even a small uplift could provide an opportunity for profit-making activity (and therefore for organised touting) to persist. Many respondents argued that, for someone who purchased a ticket on the primary market but can no longer attend an event, the opportunity to recoup their original costs should be sufficient incentive to resell their ticket.

Almost a quarter of respondents (24%) suggested that a price cap should allow for a small uplift of 10% or less. A key reason provided was that a small uplift would enable some reselling their ticket to recover the fees encountered when purchasing a ticket (for example, delivery fees) or the service fees levied on resellers by resale platforms. Some of these respondents cited examples from other jurisdictions where the price cap allows for tickets to be resold up to 10% above the ticket’s face value. 

A small proportion of respondents supported a more generous uplift of 10 to 20% (5%) or 20 to 30% (2%) to allow for those reselling their tickets to recover more of their associated costs (for example, travel or accommodation) or reduce their losses arising from these costs.

14% of respondents answered ‘other’ in response to this question. These responses included some support for other approaches, like suggestions of a higher cap set at 50% or more, or restrictions that would mean tickets can only be resold by returning them to the original vendor. Some respondents who selected this option stated their opposition to a price cap. The reasons given for this included: 

• the price of tickets on the resale market should be left to the usual market forces of supply and demand 
• price controls might risk pushing sales underground or to other channels where consumers would be less protected 
• price caps have not been successful in other jurisdictions 

Other respondents who selected this option argued that a price cap should only permit a small uplift which is not a fixed percentage but rather accounts for the fees incurred during the original purchase and the reselling of a ticket.

Question 3

Would the introduction of a price cap be likely to impact the service fees charged by resale platforms to both the buyer and the seller? If so, how?

Total responses: 367 

• yes: 51% 
• no: 25% 
• other: 24%

More than half of respondents (51%) felt that the introduction of a price cap was likely to impact the service fees charged by resale platforms. Respondents suggested that resale platforms might see reduced revenues as a result of a price cap and might therefore seek to compensate for this by increasing their service fees. Some respondents suggested that rising service fees could undermine the objectives of a price cap, as ticket prices could still end up being very high once service fees are accounted for. It was also suggested that resale platforms could share income from high service fees with touts that supply them with large volumes of tickets, thus circumventing the price cap.

To avoid these issues, it was suggested that service fees should be capped at a small percentage of the ticket price as part of a resale price cap. A number of respondents recognised that the business model for resale platforms relies on charging service fees and that these should not be overly restricted. Others pointed out that service fees would come down under a price cap where these are charged as a percentage of the ticket price.

A quarter of respondents (25%) said that they did not think a price cap would be likely to impact the service fees charged by resale platforms. A number of these respondents commented that service fees should be charged as a flat fee and should not be tied to the price of the ticket. Others commented that they could not see any reason why fees would change as a result of a price cap, since the service provided by resale platforms would remain the same even if ticket prices were capped.

Almost a quarter of respondents (24%) answered ‘other’ in response to this question. Several of these respondents were unsure whether service fees would be impacted in either direction. Other comments included: 

• service fees should be subject to a separate cap which would allow resale platforms to make a modest profit, in return for the service they provide
• with a price cap, resale platforms would be in competition for business and may therefore be incentivised to keep fees as low as possible 
• if the price cap also captured service fees charged by resale platforms (as well as the ticket price) then the fees should not change

Question 4

What would be the main operational requirement that need to be in place for primary sellers and resale platforms, to ensure original ticket prices can be easily identified for the purposes of a resale price cap? 

Total responses: 285 

Question 5

What challenges might exist for primary sellers and resale platforms with a resale price cap? 

Total responses: 278

Similar themes emerged in responses to questions 4 and 5, and therefore our analysis has been combined. 

A number of respondents highlighted the need to ensure that the original price of a ticket (including a breakdown of any administrative fees) is accessible and can be verified by resale platforms for the purposes of identifying the maximum resale price permitted under a price cap. There was a lot of discussion about how this could be achieved. For example by either:

• requiring that ticket prices are clearly displayed on tickets and proof of purchase
• establishing a technological solution (such as an application programming interface, or API) which enables primary and secondary ticketing platforms to share ticket information for the purposes of validating resale prices

Some respondents suggested it might be necessary for government to impose mandatory disclosure requirements to ensure primary sellers publish certain ticket information (including prices) at the point of initial sale or before tickets go on sale. 

Several respondents suggested that there are unlikely to be significant operational challenges for those primary sellers which offer integrated resale within their ticketing platform. That is because primary sellers can operate a ‘closed system’ whereby individual tickets and their owners can easily be identified, along with the original pricing information. However, other specialist resale platforms which offer a marketplace for tickets purchased elsewhere would need to rely on information provided by primary sellers and/or the ticket holder. Such platforms would therefore need to implement new verification processes to confirm sellers are listing tickets at a price that is compliant with the price cap, creating some compliance costs. 

A number of respondents expressed concerns about potential loopholes and whether it would be possible to establish sufficiently robust verification processes. For example, respondents mentioned that there may be circumstances where resale tickets are bundled with other products or services, or someone might have received a complimentary ticket that they later try to resell. Other respondents highlighted the need to ensure that social media platforms (for example Facebook) and other ‘generic’ marketplace platforms (such as Gumtree) had suitable controls in place to prevent the price cap being circumvented on their websites. 

More generally, some respondents commented that the price cap may lead to reduced revenues for resale platforms where tickets can currently be sold at unlimited prices. It was suggested that this may impact on the viability of these platforms, which could lead to some companies exiting the market.

Question 6

If ticket resales were subject to a price cap, should the cap apply to all live events taking place in the UK? Please state the reason for your selection.

Total responses: 368 

• yes: 83% 
• no: 17%

The majority of respondents (83%) said that a price cap should be applied to all live events taking place in the UK. There was a general feeling among respondents that applying the price cap broadly, rather than only to certain events, was important for the following reasons: 

• avoiding confusion among consumers – a two-tier approach might make it difficult for consumers to understand when the price cap applies, and therefore to know where tickets are being sold in compliance with the law 

• simplifying implementation and enforcement – regulations that apply consistently across all live events will be easier for industry to implement and for enforcers to monitor compliance, while reducing the risk of loopholes 

• providing fairness – all fans deserve the same level of protection on the resale market, regardless of the type of event they are attending and how popular it is 

• ensuring touts can no longer operate – leaving certain events outside of the price cap would mean that touts could continue to charge inflated prices on the resale market for uncapped events 

There was broad alignment from public enforcers with experience of taking enforcement action in the secondary ticketing sector that a price cap should apply to all events and cautioned against exemptions. The CMA suggested that any derogations or opt-outs could make it more difficult to enforce new restrictions efficiently and make it more difficult for consumers to understand when the price cap applies, as well as increasing compliance costs for businesses. They also stressed that a more limited approach would mean that financial incentives for ticket touts remain for events that are not in scope of the cap. 

17% of respondents said that the cap should not apply to all live events taking place in the UK. A number of these respondents seemed to select this answer because they did not agree that a price cap should be introduced at all. Others commented that a price cap should only apply to large or high-demand events, which tend to be the most affected by touting and inflated resale prices. There were suggestions that smaller events may not encounter the same issues and applying new regulation to these events may create a disproportionate administrative burden or even deter organisers from arranging them in the first place.

Question 7

If a resale price cap did not apply to all live events, what criteria should be used to determine which events are in scope? You may select more than one option. Please state the reason for your selection.

Total responses: 379^{[footnote 1]}

• venues and events above a certain capacity threshold: 24% 
• venue and event organisers ‘opting-in’ to being subject to a price cap: 14%
• other: 12% 
• not applicable: 61%

This question asked about alternative approaches for applying a price cap only to certain events, rather than to all live events. Respondents were able to select multiple responses. 

More than half of respondents (61%) answered ‘not applicable’ and accompanying free-text responses indicated that these respondents generally felt that a price cap should apply to all events.

Capacity threshold 

Almost a quarter of those who responded to this question (24%) said that a price cap should apply to venues and events above a certain capacity threshold. As with question 6, the reasons provided were generally about targeting the price cap at those larger events that are more likely to be impacted by touts and to avoid creating new administrative burdens for smaller, grassroots events. 

Opt-in approach 

Some respondents thought venue and event organisers should be able to ‘opt in’ to being subject to a price cap (14%). It was suggested that this approach would afford event organisers the flexibility to make tailored decisions based on risk factors and market conditions as they relate to specific events. Some respondents felt that this could help to identify the most high-profile and high-demand events that are most at risk of exploitative resale activity, while omitting smaller events. However, it was acknowledged that this approach might be more challenging to administer and enforce compared to a blanket model or a capacity threshold, while it might also create loopholes for touts to exploit. 

Blended model 

In some cases, respondents commented that an ‘opt-in’ mechanism should operate in combination with a capacity threshold applying to venues and events over a certain size, to account for occasions where a high-profile act may perform at a small venue. 

This is similar to the approach adopted in Ireland, where the resale of tickets above their original value is outlawed for designated events and for events taking place in designated venues under the Sale of Tickets (Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational and Sporting Events) Act 2021. Under the Irish system, venue operators can apply for designation of a venue where the venue has the capacity to hold 1,000 people or more and the venue operator is of the “reasonable opinion” that the venue will hold events that will give rise to secondary selling above the original sale price.

Similarly, event organisers can apply for designation of an event if the organiser is of the “reasonable opinion” that the event is of such a nature that it will give rise to secondary selling above the original sale price. The act also provides for the relevant government minister to designate a venue or an event where they assess that it would be in the public interest.

Question 8

If ticket resales were subject to a price cap, should resale above the price cap be permitted where tickets are resold for charitable purposes? 

Total responses: 367 

• yes: 34% 
• no: 66% 

Question 9

Aside from charitable purposes, should there be any other circumstances where resale above the price cap is permitted? 

Total responses: 367 

• yes (please state): 14% 

• no: 86%

Just under a quarter of respondents (14%) said that there should be other circumstances where resale above the price cap is permitted. A number of those who selected this answer commented that they did not agree with a price cap and did not advocate for specific exemptions. Others suggested that additional exemptions should be provided for certain types of tickets (such as hospitality or premium tickets, season tickets and debentures) or where the terms and conditions set by event organisers permit resale at an unlimited price.

Question 10

What are the risks, unintended effects or practical problems associated with a price cap on ticket resales? How could these be addressed? 

Total responses: 270

A number of respondents said that they did not think there would be significant risks, unintended effects or practical problems involved with the introduction of a price cap, and that fans could only benefit from a resale price cap. Several respondents highlighted the example of Twickets, a fan-to-fan ticket exchange platform, as evidence that a capped model could be successful. 

There were a number of common themes among responses from those who had identified potential issues: 

• black market – concerns about a return to street-selling or resale activity moving away from dedicated resale platforms and towards other channels, where the risk of consumer harm may be greater (including fraud and scams)

• circumvention – respondents felt that touts are likely to try to find a way around a price cap, which means new regulations will need to be policed intensely and provide for harsh penalties – moreover, any exemptions could provide loopholes for touts unless narrowly defined and carefully monitored

• operational challenges – a price cap would create new operational requirements for primary sellers and resale platforms – additional costs arising from new requirements could be passed on to consumers through higher prices

• viability of resale platforms – a decrease in the profitability of resale platforms resulting from a price cap could worsen user experience and lead to increased fees – platforms may decide to exit the market, which could worsen competition

• ticket prices on the primary market – concerns that a resale price cap could lead to higher prices on the primary market or greater use of dynamic pricing, if primary ticketing companies decide to charge higher prices as a way of capturing some of the additional consumer surplus arising from a price cap on ticket resales

Question 11

Should resale platforms be prohibited from allowing sellers to list more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market? Please state the reason for your selection.

Total responses: 375 

• yes: 76% 
• no: 17%
• other: 6%

Just over three quarters of respondents (76%) felt that resale platforms should be prohibited from allowing sellers to list more tickets for an event than any one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market. Respondents agreed that new limits could help to reduce the likelihood of ticket sales being dominated by touts, facilitated by the use of bots, duplicate accounts and other underhand methods. In turn, access to tickets for genuine fans would be improved. 

17% of respondents did not think that a restriction on resale volumes should be introduced. Some respondents felt that it would be too difficult to implement and enforce given that tickets can be bought and resold across multiple platforms, or resellers may use multiple accounts. Others suggested that volume limits would be less important if a strict resale price cap is implemented, as a price cap would disincentivise bulk-buying. A number of respondents mentioned that volume limits might inadvertently prohibit someone from reselling tickets on behalf of their friends and family, if the number of tickets exceeded the original sales limit. 

A small proportion of respondents (6%) answered ‘other’ in response to this question. Again, some of these respondents suggested that volume limits might be unnecessary if tickets cannot be resold for profit. Other respondents argued that tickets should only be resold through the original vendor, and not through third-party sellers.

Question 12

What are the risks of introducing new limits on resale volumes? How could these risks be countered? 

Total responses: 229

A number of respondents commented that they could not see any risks associated with volume limits, since the resale market should be for ordinary fans seeking to resell unwanted tickets and not those looking to profit by reselling large numbers of tickets. Others stressed that a price cap should be the main route to cut off the incentives for touts and questioned whether resale limits would be necessary if a price cap was introduced. 

Other responses highlighted a number of perceived risks and issues, including: 

• enforcement – it may be difficult to robustly implement and enforce volume limits, since touts may use multiple false identities and operate across different resale platforms –some respondents called for better identity verification to mitigate this risk

• impact on ticket touts – some respondents argued that touting was a legitimate enterprise and that volume limits would impede the ability of touts to operate

• underground resale activity – as with a price cap, some respondents felt there could be a risk that implementing volume limits could see sales redirected through alternative channels like social media

• operational challenges for resale platforms – concerns about new compliance costs arising from volume limits, if resale platforms are required to monitor individual seller activities and retrieve information about the original terms of sale

• preventing genuine fans from being able to resell tickets – there were some concerns that ordinary fans could be impeded from offloading unwanted tickets, for example if they were trying to resell tickets on behalf of family and friends

• bots – some respondents argued that more needed to be done to uphold primary ticket limits during the original sale, by tackling bots and preventing the use of multiple identities at the point of purchase

New requirements on resale platforms (Q13 to Q17) 

Part 4 of the consultation sought views on the requirements that should be placed on ticket resale platforms in respect of activity on their sites. Some of the questions related to issues explored in the CMA’s 2021 report, which concluded that seller non-compliance could in part be addressed by placing stricter obligations on resale platforms.

Question 13

Should resale platforms be required by law to verify that the seller owns a ticket before it can be listed for resale on their website? 

Total responses: 374 

• yes: 79% 
• no: 5% 
• other (please state): 16%

79% of respondents agreed that resale platforms should be required by law to verify that the seller owns the ticket being resold.

Respondents who answered ‘other’, giving reasons, emphasised the practical difficulties with complying or enforcing such an obligation, and the risk of unintended consequences. Several respondents highlighted that without comprehensive and open data sharing between the primary market and secondary market participants, definitive verification of ownership would be impossible.

Compliance could be further complicated by common market practices such as the late release of actual tickets, or where a ticket has already been resold once on the secondary market and someone is attempting to resell it again. In these situations, rigorous verification measures could inadvertently frustrate legitimate resale. 

Even if compliance was possible, concerns were expressed that such obligations would privilege primary platforms that operate a resale facility (who could easily verify ownership against their own database), to the detriment of independent platforms for which compliance would be more costly, thus distorting competition.

Some respondents also opined that verification was less likely to be necessary in the context of an effective price cap, where incentives for fraud would be much reduced.

Question 14

Should resale platforms be required by law to verify key information provided by a reseller about a ticket (for example, original price and location within the venue) before it can be listed for resale on their website?

Total responses: 367 

• yes: 82% 
• no: 6% 
• other (please state): 12%

Over three quarters of respondents (82%) answered that platforms should be required to verify key ticket information.

Of those who answered ‘other’ and gave reasons, some respondents believed this is already dealt with by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and/or the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (which have been repealed and replaced by chapter 1 of part 4 DMCCA).

Other respondents echoed concerns outlined in response to question 13, namely that:

• for such verification to be definitive it would need to be supported by data sharing across the primary and secondary market
• burdensome compliance obligations may privilege primary platforms with a resale facility at the expense of independent resale platforms
• verification may be unnecessary in circumstances where a price cap has reduced incentives for touting, speculative selling and fraud

Question 15

What steps should ticket resale platforms take to ensure that tickets listed on their websites do not breach requirements under consumer law? 

Total responses: 230

Many responses to this question described the level of response expected of the platforms rather than, or in addition to, suggesting specific measures. The general tenor of these responses was that platforms should take all reasonable steps to ensure the law is complied with on their sites. 

Suggested verification or authentication measures included:

• requiring resellers to provide scans or photos of tickets
• direct verification of the ticket ownership with the primary seller
• encoding of tickets (by the primary platforms) with unique identifiers
• the use of automated detection tools

Transparency measures were mentioned, including:

• clear upfront pricing
• the prohibition of misleading descriptions of seat types
• requirements to clearly display relevant ticket information – including any restrictions on the use of the ticket or the buyer’s right to transfer or change it

It was argued that this could be supported by buyer protections provided by the resale platform, so that buyers could obtain refunds or further exchange their ticket if needed.

Some respondents believed trade bodies, such as the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers (STAR), could help to convene an industry working group that sets out clear standards. It was suggested that resale platforms could be required to be members of STAR.

Question 16

Should resale platforms be responsible for preventing resale of tickets when the primary seller has prohibited resale under their terms and conditions?

Total responses: 364 

• yes: 68% 
• no: 13% 
• other (please state): 19%

68% of respondents agreed that resale platforms should be responsible for preventing any resale of tickets when the primary seller had prohibited resale under their terms and conditions.

Many respondents, however, considered that resale should be permitted where a fan has a genuine and unavoidable reason why they cannot attend the event. This could be supported by buyer protection.

A number of respondents were concerned that blanket resale prohibitions or other extensive restrictions in terms and conditions represent an unreasonable restriction on competition that harm consumers’ interests. These respondents tended to support resale platforms facilitating resale in breach of such conditions, though clear pre-purchase disclosure of any restrictions was thought to be essential. Respondents recognised that such obligations on resale platforms already exist.

Some respondents made the point that if a price cap is introduced – and touts thereby driven out of the ticketing market – there may be little or no need for primary sellers to restrict resale.

Question 17

Should consumers be able to obtain refunds for resold tickets purchased from professional traders through secondary ticketing platforms? Please state the reason for your selection. 

Total responses: 351 

• yes: 54% 
• no: 21% 
• other (please state): 25%

A majority of respondents (54%) were in favour of refunds being provided. Those in favour supported alignment with the primary market’s refund policies, or with refund availability across the broader consumer law environment. Specific situations where it was felt refunds should be provided included cases of fraud, the invalidity of the purchased ticket and the cancellation of the event. Several respondents also felt that refund policies would help to hold resale platforms and/or professional sellers to account, ensuring the market functions in the consumer’s interests. 

Those against the mandating of refunds (21%) pointed out that refunds are often unavailable in the primary market, arguing the secondary market should mirror this. It was argued that the business models of artists, venues and promoters often depend on un-refundable tickets, and that the focus of resale platforms (and government regulation) should be on facilitating frictionless resale so that fans who cannot attend events are able to resell their tickets easily, recouping their costs. 

Moreover, a number of respondents pointed out that in a capped market there are unlikely to be any professional resellers, thus negating the need to mandate refunds by them.

Enhancing enforcement (Q18 to Q22) 

Part 5 of the consultation document sought views about potential options for making enforcement action in the ticket resale market easier and more effective. These options included reviewing the level of penalties available for breaches of the secondary ticketing provisions in part 3 of the CRA, and the establishment of a licensing regime to regulate the secondary ticketing market.

Question 18

Should the government review the levels of penalties available for breaches of the Consumer Rights Act and if so, what factors should we consider in respect of these? 

Total responses: 331 

• yes (please state): 80% 
• no: 20%

Question 18 sought views on whether the government should review the level of penalties under part 3 of the CRA 2015 and what factors should be considered. Currently, the CRA enables local authority Trading Standards services, the CMA and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland to directly impose fines up to £5,000 for breaches of secondary ticketing provisions in the CRA.^{[footnote 2]}

Over three quarters (80%) of respondents agreed that the government should review the level of penalties under the CRA.

One of the key reasons in support of the review of penalties was that current penalties were felt to be too low to act as an effective deterrent or punishment against breaches of existing laws. Respondents pointed out the fact that current fines may be treated as a minor cost of doing business and can be absorbed easily by touts. Others suggested that enforcers needed to be able to impose harsher fines on resale platforms if they are not preventing tickets being listed on their sites in breach of the law or failing to comply with their legal obligations. 

Many respondents thought that penalties should be large and calculated proportionally to the profit made by touts operating in breach of the law at the detriment of genuine fans. Factors to scale up the fines could include repeated violations, profits made, and the size of the offending business.

Some respondents argued that other punitive actions should be included in legislation, likely to tackle individual touts – such as criminal charges resulting in prison sentences, seizure of assets, and/or a ban on all reselling platforms.

Higher penalties for breaches of ticketing legislation have been supported by consumer advocacy groups like Which? and enforcers such as the CMA. In their consultation response, the CMA explained that higher penalties could contribute to greater deterrence, though it stressed that penalty levels should not be considered in isolation from the wider enforcement framework. 

Additionally, several respondents voiced concern that penalties at any level can only be efficient if proper enforcement ensues. A minority thought that current penalty levels are sufficient and that instead, the focus should be put on better and consistent enforcement and education about the rights and obligations of consumers and sellers. Some also thought the cost of higher penalties would ultimately fall onto consumers.

Question 19

Would a licensing system for resale platforms help to address issues on the secondary ticketing market and improve the enforcement of consumer law? Please state the reason for your selection. 

Total responses: 259 

• yes: 56% 
• no: 17% 
• do not know: 27%

This question invited views on the potential benefits of a licensing regime that would regulate the secondary ticketing market.

56% of respondents considered that a licensing system for resale platforms would help address current issues and support better enforcement of consumer law. This proposal was supported by several ticketing platforms, live events professionals and enforcers or consumer advocacy groups such as the CMA (whose views are expanded upon in the ‘Enforcement framework’ section) and Which?.

Many indicated that a key benefit of a licensing system would be to provide a clear legal framework enabling the licensing authority to take swifter, stronger and more targeted actions against non-compliance than is possible with the current enforcement landscape. A licensing authority could have powers to require information from a platform at short notice, remove infringing content at speed and suspend or revoke a licence where businesses are not complying with the law or the authority’s directions.

Some respondents suggested that a licensing regime would require secondary ticketing platforms to meet certain criteria and accept certain conditions to obtain a licence, which would naturally limit the pool of players in the market and create consistency in business practices. As a result, this could support consumers trust in platforms and help them identify legitimate platforms to use.

Nonetheless, 27% of respondents were unsure (‘do not know’) about the potential impact of a licensing system and 17% did not agree that a licensing system would address current issues. Both groups shared concerns over the potential additional cost and added bureaucracy that would go to businesses when obtaining and renewing a licence. Some respondents were concerned about the cost and the time required to set up a new regulatory structure, which they felt could be an expensive and lengthy operation that may not deliver immediate results.

Respondents who picked ‘do not know’ shared uncertainty around implementation of a licensing regime and doubted the ability to effectively enforce licensing requirements, particularly for platforms located outside of UK borders. They also suggested waiting for the government to review the efficiency of other proposed market interventions, such as a price cap, before implementing a licensing regime.

Those who responded ‘no’ did not think that a licensing regime would address the core issues of the market such as industrial-scale touting and unethical practices. They believed that bad actors would find ways to circumvent the licensing regime and proceed with their abusive practices.

Question 20

Beyond demonstrating compliance with UK consumer law, should licensed platforms be subject to any further requirements? If so, what should these requirements be? 

Total responses: 303 

• yes (please state): 54% 
• no: 46%

This question sought views on whether resale platforms should be subject to any further requirements than complying with the UK consumer law when obtaining a licence.

We received 303 responses to this question, with a close divide between the ‘yes’ (54%) and ‘no’ (46%). We asked those responding ‘yes’ to set out what requirements they thought should be considered.

Respondents suggested that requirements should include:

• compliance with any implemented price caps on ticket resale and tickets individual resellers can list for resale 
• commitment for transparency including disclosure of information to the licensing authority and compliance with audit request 
• implementation of robust consumer protection measures, including using secure payment methods, anti-bot measures, identification process for resellers, authentication of tickets before listing 
• integration with the primary ticketing market, sharing data and verifying ticket information such as identity of original purchaser, purchased price, seat location 
• compliance with UK laws, for domestic and non-UK-based platforms, including tax and anti-money laundering regulations

Recommendations also included actions to make the market more accessible to fans such as meeting ethical standards, offering non-digital and other accessibility options for ticket resales, and better policies around refund and customer support.

Question 21

What could be the potential unintended consequences of a licensing system? 

Total responses: 205

Question 21 offered the opportunity to provide views on the potential impacts of a licensing regime for the resale market. 

One of the main topics mentioned in responses was the cost implication of a licensing regime for both businesses and consumers. For businesses, this involved the cost to obtain a licence and the cost of meeting compliance requirements. The expectation of some respondents was that any additional costs incurred by businesses would be passed to fans when purchasing tickets.

Alongside additional costs, respondents highlighted that businesses would face an administrative burden and added bureaucracy that would impact their operations. Respondents also shared concerns about over the cost of setting up a licensing mechanism by the government.

Some respondents voiced concern that a licensing regime could reduce competition on the secondary ticketing market, for example by making it less attractive for new entrants or for existing businesses to continue operating. In particular, it was felt that smaller resale platforms could suffer from the administrative burden and cost of acquiring a licence – risking them leaving the market or never entering it. Some respondents worried that it could lead to a market composed of only big platforms, providing them further power to manipulate the market for their gains.

Respondents noted that unscrupulous resellers or platforms may not be deterred from stopping their activity by the requirement to hold a licence. Many respondents expected some ticket resale activity to move to the black market. 

While some responses to question 19 highlighted that a licensing regime could help customers identifying reliable platforms, some respondents to question 21 were concerned that a licensing regime would in fact give legitimacy to bad actors who managed to obtain a licence.

Question 22

How might a licensing system interact with other proposals set out in this consultation, such as a resale price cap? 

Total responses: 187

This question sought views on potential interactions between a licensing regime and other proposals such as a price cap.

Generally, fans responding to the consultation did not express any significant concerns about potential negative interaction between a resale price cap and a licensing system.

Some responses identified a licensing regime as an important mechanism to enforce a price cap, where actions such as revocation of a licence could be levied to support compliance. More generally, a licensing regime was considered a way to improve transparency and consumer protection on the secondary ticketing market.

There were a few contrasting views that a licensing regime may be unnecessary if a price cap proves to be an efficient way to regulate the market and deter bad actors. Some responses reiterated that the focus should be put on increasing the scale of enforcement activity rather than setting up new regulatory powers.

Promoting industry-led action to improve access for fans (Q23 to Q26)

Responses to the consultation highlighted a strong appetite for industry-led improvements in how tickets are distributed, verified, and resold, in order to improve the situation for fans and reduce the scale of exploitative resale. While there were divergent views on the most appropriate blend of measures, many respondents felt that action by participants in the primary market, alongside potential actions by secondary platforms and the government, can play a significant role in improving outcomes for fans. 

Question 23

How could participants on the primary market adapt their ticketing distribution approach to reduce the likelihood of tickets appearing on the secondary market at inflated prices? 

Total responses: 264

Respondents suggested a wide range of changes that primary ticket sellers could implement to reduce the risk of inflated resale and improve access for genuine fans. Many saw scope for innovation in how tickets are distributed and how demand is managed but also acknowledged the scale of the challenge and the need for collaboration between platforms.

Greater use of technology and ID verification 

Many respondents argued that technology can and should play a central role in reducing problematic resale. Proposals included: 

• verified fan schemes, where purchasers register in advance using a single email, payment method or unique buying code
• personalised or non-transferable tickets, linked to named individuals or supported by digital ID verification at point of purchase or entry
• advanced tools for detecting bots, such as dynamic CAPTCHA, AI-based monitoring, and device fingerprinting 

These measures were seen as especially valuable for high-demand events, where touts are more likely to use automated software to harvest tickets. However, respondents also acknowledged the challenges, noting that the scale of bot activity is substantial with one major primary seller reportedly intercepting over 40 million bot attempts in one month alone. This illustrates both the determination of touts and the need for continued investment in anti-bot technology.

Primary and secondary platform collaboration 

Several respondents suggested closer co-ordination between primary and secondary platforms could enhance transparency and ticket security. According to respondents, this could include: 

• API integration between systems to enable real-time verification of ticket authenticity and compliance with resale conditions
• sharing data on suspicious activity (for example bot attacks and unusual buying patterns), to support enforcement and prevention of ticket harvesting
• promotion of face-value resale channels, where fans are directed back to approved resale routes through the original seller 

Respondents saw potential in systems where resale platforms are able to validate tickets directly with the issuing primary seller, reducing the risk of duplication or fraud and making it harder for touts to operate at scale.

Improved practices in the primary market 

Beyond technology, many responses pointed to the broader role of the primary market in tackling ticket touting through: 

• staggered ticket releases or ballots to reduce panic buying and undermine the notions of scarcity which touts exploit 
• clearer communication about when additional tickets will be released, giving fans confidence that they need not turn to overpriced resale immediately if they cannot get a ticket
• improved refund and resale options: offering a straightforward refund mechanism or integrated face value resale (for example via the original platform) would reduce pressure to turn to touts

Question 24

How could the live events sector better enforce ticket resale restrictions and harness technology to combat touts and enable more transparent, efficient and safer authorised resale for fans? What are the barriers and is there a role for government to facilitate this? 

Total responses: 223

Respondents emphasised that a more transparent and secure ticketing and resale process would require joint effort across the live events industry and that primary market participants – including event organisers, ticketing platforms and venues – play a central role. Key themes emerging from consultation responses included: 

Clarity and fairness of resale restrictions 

Respondents stressed that where event organisers or platforms impose restrictions on resale, such restrictions should be applied consistently and proportionately, in such a way that genuine fans who need to exchange their ticket are not penalised and consumers’ rights are not violated. They also emphasised the need for such restrictions to be clearly communicated up front.

Technology and innovation 

Many consumers and fan groups called for greater use of technology to prevent large-scale touting and enable fairer resale. Suggestions included interoperability between platforms to verify ticket authenticity in real time as well as the use of:

• dynamic QR codes
• blockchain based ticket verification
• ID-linked ticketing
• AI fraud detection

These proposals reflected strong support for innovation that improves transparency leading to better outcomes for fans. However, it is important to note that the strongest calls for investment came from those who would not typically bear the associated costs. It is important to acknowledge that implementing new technical infrastructure can be complex and expensive, especially for organisers of smaller events or independent promoters that may have less capital available for such investments.

Consumer information 

Many respondents emphasised that better informed consumers are essential to improving outcomes in the ticketing market. It was stressed that fans would benefit from clear and timely information about where to buy tickets safely, how to recognise authorised resale, and what resale restrictions apply to the tickets they purchase. A recurring concern was that consumers are often directed to resale sites via search engines and may proceed to purchase a resale ticket without realising they are not purchasing from the primary seller operating on behalf of the event organiser.

While this does not necessarily cause consumer detriment, problems can arise if tickets are restricted or invalid. More generally, consumers may lose out if they end up purchasing a ticket on the secondary market which has been priced at a significant mark-up when tickets are still available on the primary market. Respondents proposed several measures to support more informed purchasing including: 

• clearer signposting by primary sellers to approved resale channels 
• improved information on ticket restrictions and resale rights before a purchase is made 
• better labelling of resale sites in search results 
• public awareness campaigns to help fans understand how to identify safe sellers and avoid scams

Barriers and challenges 

While there was broad support for improvements across ticket distribution, resale and enforcement, respondents also identified a number of barriers to achieving meaningful change. Several expressed concern that the vertical integration of some major ticketing companies may reduce incentives to enforce resale restrictions or facilitate capped resale, particularly where they generate revenue from secondary sales. 

Others raised issues around digital exclusion, particularly for fans without smartphones or access to digital ID tools, who may be disadvantaged by mobile or app-based ticketing systems. There were also concerns about practical challenges of event organisers cancelling tickets sold on unauthorised platforms, especially those operating outside of UK jurisdiction.

Some respondents argued that there was a lack of co-ordinated enforcement, stating that responsibility for tackling unauthorised or harmful resale practices currently falls too heavily on individual event organisers and platforms, without sufficient regulatory oversight.

Views on the role of government

Several respondents used this question to raise broader points about where they felt further action could be taken to support a more transparent and secure ticketing market. While views differed on whether government intervention is necessary, a number of suggestions were made for how existing practices could be strengthened or supported. 

One common proposal was to introduce obligations on primary ticketing platforms to offer or facilitate capped face value resale, either through their own infrastructure or via third parties. This was seen as a way to reduce reliance on uncapped secondary ticketing sites and offer fans a secure way to transfer tickets they can no longer use. 

Some respondents proposed the introduction of minimum standards for resale including identifying whether tickets are valid and transferable and requirements for platforms to disclose any restrictions at the point of purchase. 

There was also support for the development of stronger enforcement tools, including strict penalties for sellers or platforms that fail to uphold resale conditions or allow fraudulent listings to persist. A number of responses called for enhanced oversight of secondary ticketing platforms, such as a licensing regime or record keeping obligations to ensure accountability. 

In addition, some respondents proposed the creation of an independent ombudsman or redress mechanism to assist consumers in resolving disputes and to support more consistent standards across both primary and secondary markets. 

While not all respondents supported regulatory change, these suggestions reflect a shared concern about ensuring that:

• fans are better protected
• resale is more consistently and transparently managed
• enforcement is more effective across the board

Question 25

How would measures set out in this consultation (notably a price cap) interact with incentives for primary sellers to enable more permissive resale and transferability of tickets for fans? 

Total responses: 194

Respondents expressed a wide range of views on how a statutory resale price cap might affect the behaviour of primary sellers, particularly in relation to their willingness to permit or enable resale. 

Many suggested that incentives for industrial scale touting would be significantly reduced. In this context, several respondents argued that primary sellers would have less reason to restrict resale and might be more willing to facilitate safe and flexible transfer options for fans. Some suggested this could include resale through integrated or partner platforms, waiting list style systems or digital ticket transfer. 

There was support for the idea that the price cap could make face value resale more commercially acceptable to primary platforms, allowing them to retain more of the resale process and reduce leakage to other platforms. A number of respondents suggested that platforms could benefit from maintaining control over resale activity, while also offering fans a secure way to recoup costs if they could no longer attend an event. 

However, some respondents raised concerns about possible unintended consequences. These included the risk that primary sellers may respond to a cap by raising initial ticket prices, expanding premium pricing categories (based on evidence from the current resale market that consumers are willing to pay above face value), or otherwise shifting revenue generation upstream. Others warned that making tickets more transferable could increase fraud risks if resale verification mechanisms were not robust. A few respondents cautioned that permissive resale could still be exploited by informal resellers or result in more duplication or speculative listings. 

Some respondents emphasised the importance of maintaining consumer choice, arguing that fans should not be forced to use only one resale channel, particularly if prices are already capped and resale is not-for-profit making. 

Several respondents also saw the price cap as a complementary measure, reducing the need for primary sellers to impose stricter resale conditions or enforce exclusivity of resale routes. In this way it could support a more open, consumer friendly research environment, provided it was underpinned by safeguards such as secure ticket verification.

Question 26

What other factors should the primary market and the government consider to address issues identified with ticket resale? 

Total responses: 198

Question 26 gave respondents the opportunity to reflect more broadly on the factors contributing to problems in the ticket resale market. Many respondents used this question to expand on themes raised earlier in the consultation, while others proposed additional measures or drew attention to other aspects of the ticketing market that sat outside of the scope of the consultation. 

Primary market practices and pricing models 

A number of respondents emphasised that problems in the secondary market cannot be addressed in isolation from practices in the primary market. Several raised concerns about the continued use of dynamic pricing, arguing that it contributes to high initial ticket prices and confusion about what constitutes fair value. Some warned that without attention to primary market pricing strategies, a resale price cap could simply shift profit maximising behaviours to the initial sale through inflated base prices or expanded premium categories. 

Platform conduct and market dominance 

Respondents also raised concerns about the concentration of market power among a small number of vertically integrated platforms, particularly those that control ticketing, resale and venues. It was suggested that this structure can reduce consumer choice and create weak incentives for improving the resale experience for fans.

Accessibility and inclusion 

A number of respondents highlighted the need to ensure that ticketing and reserve systems are inclusive. They stressed the importance of accommodating disabled fans and those without smartphones or access to digital tools, who may face barriers when engaging with increasingly digital or app-based systems. There was a call for any new regulatory requirements or ticketing processes – such as mobile ticketing and digital ID verification – to be designed with accessibility in mind. Respondents recommended that accessibility specialists be consulted in the development of any such measures to ensure they do not inadvertently disadvantage certain groups of fans. Some responses also called for greater standardisation of process for reselling access tickets including clear procedures to verify eligibility. 

Consumer protection and education 

Several responses focused on the need for better consumer education to help fans understand how to buy and resell tickets safely. Consumer campaigns could raise awareness of the risks of buying through channels that are not authorised by the event organiser, how to identify authorised or trusted platforms, how to distinguish between primary and secondary ticketing platforms, and what protections are provided in case things go wrong. Respondents suggested that government, platforms and consumer organisations should work together on a set of clear, consistent messages for fans.

Many respondents also used this question to reiterate calls for clearer information when tickets are first advertised or listed, including, what resale or transfer restrictions apply and displaying the full cost of the ticket upfront, including fees.

Regulatory and enforcement issues 

A number of respondents raised concerns about weaknesses in the current enforcement landscape and gaps in regulatory oversight. Some respondents felt that limited action had been taken to investigate and improve the conduct of resale platforms, particularly those based overseas. This was seen as undermining the effectiveness of existing restrictions and placing an unfair burden on organisers and platforms trying to uphold fair access to tickets and prevent abuse. 

There were also calls for more proactive monitoring and stronger enforcement tools, including clear sanctions for platforms or individuals who breach resale restrictions, allow fraudulent listings to remain online, or mislead consumers through pricing or presentation. A number of responses highlighted the issue of bots as a persistent area of abuse. While some platforms have made significant investments in anti-bot technologies, respondents noted that stronger co-ordination, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms (as well as more consistent use of anti-bot technologies) could help reduce their impact on the market. 

In parallel, concerns were raised about tax treatment in the secondary market. Some professional resellers may not pay VAT or Income Tax on profits, creating an uneven playing field with platforms and traders who do comply. Suggestions included better HMRC oversight, improved information sharing across agencies, and clearer reporting requirements for high volume seller. 

Inventory management and scheduling 

Some respondents suggested that the way tickets are allocated and events are announced can also influence activity on the resale market. There was concern that allocating a significant proportion of tickets to corporate sponsors and early access schemes reduces the number of tickets available to the general public and that this contributes to scarcity and inflated resale – even though this is entirely lawful and common industry practice. 

Respondents also raised concerns about how additional events are announced and how tickets are released. Some felt that when fans feel there is only one chance to buy tickets it can create a sense of urgency and drive panic buying and increase incentives for speculative resale. By contrast, a more transparent approach to announcing additional dates and using staggered ticket releases, with clear communication from the outset could give fans confidence that further purchasing opportunities will arise through primary channels reducing reliance on the secondary market. 

A number of responses encouraged promoters and venues to consider the wider fan experience when developing their approach to ticketing, for example ensuring adequate provision for accessible ticketing, offering more affordable options for younger audiences, and setting out clear and fair resale policies. This was seen as a way to promote inclusivity and trust in the live events sector.

Part 3: government response

The government is committed to clamping down on ticket touts, to put fans back at the heart of live events. We have always been clear that the question was not whether we act, but how. Our consultation was the first step in this process, enabling us to test a range of potential proposals with fans, artists and performers, ticketing platforms, event organisers and other stakeholders, before deciding on next steps. 

The responses that we received demonstrate the strength of opinion that reform to the ticket resale market is well overdue. For too long, the live events sector has been plagued by the practices of ticket touts who buy and resell tickets on a systematic and speculative basis – exploiting committed fans by charging vastly inflated prices on the secondary market and unfairly extracting value from the live events sector. 

In our consultation, we presented a set of robust proposals to bring about a fairer, more equitable ticket resale market, and the responses show these were widely supported. Having carefully considered responses, and following extensive engagement with stakeholders in recent months, the government intends to take forward the following measures:

• a resale price cap which prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket cost, inclusive of unavoidable fees incurred during the original purchase

• a separate cap on service fees to ensure the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees, while providing a sustainable margin for resale platforms

• resale volume limits which make it unlawful for someone to resell more tickets for an event than they were entitled to purchase

• strict legal obligations on platforms to ensure compliance with the price cap, applied broadly to all online platforms facilitating resale of live events tickets

• enabling enforcement of new ticketing measures via the consumer enforcement regime established by part 3 of the DMCCA, which provides for tough financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover

The government will legislate to implement these measures when parliamentary time allows. 

In this section, we set out more detail about how the reforms will be designed and how we intend to deliver them. 

New prohibitions on resale 

Respondents expressed widespread support for introducing new legislation to impose strict restrictions on the resale of tickets for live events. Responses to the consultation supported the view that government intervention should be targeted at removing the financial incentives for large-scale reselling by ticket touts.

On the specific measures proposed in the consultation, there was strong support for:

• a price cap which would prohibit someone reselling tickets for profit and that this should be applied broadly across all live events to provide consistency and ensure fairness across the sector

• volume restrictions that would make it unlawful for someone to resell more tickets than they were entitled to purchase on the primary market

The government has decided to take both of these measures forward. Following implementation, we will review the impacts on the market to understand the effectiveness of these policy interventions in delivering on the policy intent, and to monitor any unintended consequences, such as any impact on the prevalence of fraud.

This section sets out more detail on our intended approach.

Price cap 

The government’s policy objective is to configure a price cap that enables someone who is reselling their ticket to recoup their original costs (the original price of the ticket, inclusive of any unavoidable fees) but does not enable someone to achieve a profit by reselling their ticket. The responses that we received to our consultation revealed overwhelming support for this approach.

Defining ‘original ticket cost’

For the purposes of a resale price cap, it is necessary to establish a clear definition of ‘original ticket cost’ from which maximum resale prices can be calculated. 

The provisions in the CRA that impose specific information requirements on resellers and secondary ticketing platforms draw upon the concept of a ticket’s ‘face value’, understood as the amount stated on the ticket as its price.

However, someone buying a ticket on the primary market will typically encounter a range of additional transaction costs which means a ticket’s face value often does not reflect its total cost. Some of these additional costs might be:

• unavoidable (for example, a service fee levied by the ticketing platform)
• contingent upon the method of delivery (for example, a delivery fee for a physical ticket rather than a digital ticket)
• wholly optional (for example, pre-ordering food and drink)

Our intention is that ‘original ticket cost’ for the purposes of calculating the maximum resale price of a ticket will account for any unavoidable transaction costs incurred when a ticket was first purchased but does not account for costs associated with any optional goods or services. To achieve this, we intend to draw upon the definition of “total price” in section 230 of the DMCCA, which states that: 

…the total price of a product includes any fees, taxes, charges or other payments that the consumer will necessarily incur if the consumer purchases the product. 

Where a fixed fee is charged as part of the original transaction and this is spread across multiple tickets, only the relevant ‘per-ticket’ portion of the fee will be factored into the original ticket cost. 

We do not intend to set a limit on the value of unavoidable transaction costs that can be passed on as part of the resale price cap. We think it is reasonable that a reseller attempting to resell an unwanted ticket and recoup their costs should be able to account for the total transaction costs that they paid in purchasing the ticket originally, where those costs were unavoidably incurred. After all, it can be assumed that the secondary buyer (that is, the person purchasing a ticket being resold on the resale market) would have encountered these costs had they originally purchased a ticket on the primary market.

Gifts and discounted tickets 

In certain circumstances, someone attempting to resell a ticket on the resale market may not have paid full price for the ticket (for example, they may have received a complimentary ticket). Our definition of original ticket cost will need to provide for these sorts of circumstances by setting out how the original cost is to be determined where the full price has not been paid. 

We think the original ticket cost for a ticket that was not originally purchased for the full price should be determined by the price at which an equivalent ticket was originally purchased. While this might enable someone in these circumstances to make a profit by reselling their ticket, the price cap would still function to ensure that the secondary buyer was protected from paying an inflated price compared to the price at which the ticket was originally on sale. 

We are aware that there may be complexities in determining the right price where, for example, events have been ticketed by multiple primary vendors and prices vary between them. This will require further interrogation as new legislation is prepared.

Bundling resale tickets with other products or services 

The government believes that the legislation would need to make clear that resale tickets cannot be packaged with other benefits (such as merchandise, hotel stays or travel) because such packages could enable resellers to obscure the real price that they are charging for the ticket and thereby circumvent the price cap. This was a potential loophole that was raised in a number of responses to our consultation. 

We therefore intend to include a provision in new legislation which would prevent resellers from circumventing the price cap on a ticket by forcing the purchaser to acquire other products in order to obtain it.

Exemptions 

We agree with the majority of respondents that the price cap should apply generally, rather than adopting a more targeted or discretionary model. A targeted cap would permit continued profiteering for events that are not in scope of the price cap, increase operational complexity, and make it harder for fans to understand the rules. We are reassured that a general cap is well supported by the responses that we received to our consultation from a range of different stakeholders, including fans, enforcers, and participants in the live events industry.

Our consultation explored the case for possible exemptions whereby resale above the price cap could be permitted – for example, where tickets are resold for charitable fundraising purposes. We also received responses to the consultation which made the case for excluding certain types of tickets from a resale price cap, such as premium or hospitality tickets, where permitted by the event organiser. 

The government recognises that any exemptions must be tightly drawn and narrowly defined to avoid potential abuse, which could ultimately lead to our policy objectives being undermined. There were clear concerns about this expressed by respondents to the consultation. However, having carefully considered the range of evidence provided, we think a good case can be made for the following narrow exemptions: 

• charitable purposes – enabling tickets to be resold by registered charities in excess of the price cap for fundraising purposes, where authorised by the event organiser, to ensure the price cap does not inadvertently prevent charities from maximising their return on fundraising efforts

• debentures – allowing event organisers to authorise debenture holders to resell tickets in excess of the price cap. Some event organisers sell debentures that give the holder the right to a reserved seat at an event, usually over multiple years, and often allow the holder to resell the tickets for individual days. For example, the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) operates a debenture scheme for the Wimbledon Championships. These arrangements operate very differently from one-off events tickets (they are financial instruments) and allow live events businesses to generate secure, up-front revenue that can be invested in bringing world class sporting, music and other live events to the public 

The government will continue to examine how these exemptions could be defined and administered in a way that would not risk undermining the overall effectiveness of the price cap, before legislation is brought forward.

Resale service fees cap 

Ticket resale platforms tend to generate revenue by charging fees to those buying and/or selling tickets through their websites. These fees are generally a percentage of the total resale price. 

In our consultation, we asked what impact the introduction of a price cap might have on the fees charged by resale platforms. The responses expressed concerns about resale platforms being able to significantly inflate their service fees to circumvent the price cap. 

As the CMA noted in its response to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets, the introduction of a price cap would mean that – in some cases – there would be a significant gap between the maximum permitted resale price and the maximum price that a buyer would be willing to pay. In these circumstances, resale platforms may be incentivised to charge high buyer fees to capture this gap.

We recognise these concerns and agree there is a risk of resale platforms charging significantly higher service fees as a way to compensate for lost revenue resulting from capped ticket prices. Without adequate protections, it might also be possible for resale platforms to use revenues from higher service fees to pay touts to continue buying up tickets and listing them on their websites. 

The government is not prepared to accept this risk. As such, we intend to restrict the level of service fees that can be charged by platforms for resale of tickets. We recognise that there are costs involved with operating a ticket resale platform (including a resale function on a platform that also runs primary sales) and that platforms need to operate on a commercial basis. We also recognise that the revenues generated by service fees enable platforms to make investments in improving their service offerings, such as tackling bots, which ultimately benefits consumers. Finally, we recognise that the level of service fees cap will need to account for the range of different business models in the market and the substantial variation between those models in terms of associated business costs. However, we have determined that it is necessary to cap service fees to ensure that the resale price cap operates effectively and cannot be undermined. 

There are different ways that service fees could be capped. For example, some stakeholders have proposed an ‘all-in’ price cap that would apply to the price paid by the buyer and include both the price of the ticket and any service fees being charged by the resale platform. The price cap could be set at 115%, which would mean that the buyer cannot be charged more than 15% above the original ticket cost (the face value of the ticket plus any unavoidable fees charged by the primary seller), inclusive of any service fees levied on them by the resale platform. 

However, one downside of this approach is that an all-in cap might result in fans not being able to recoup their total costs even in instances where there is sufficient demand for tickets priced at the maximum resale price. For example, an all-in cap set at 115% would see a reseller make a loss if the fees charged by the resale platform exceeded 15%. In addition, an all-in cap would effectively bake in resale service fees, despite the fact that not all tickets will be resold via a dedicated resale platform and therefore not all resale transactions will incur service fees. 

Given this, the government thinks that it would be more suitable to set a separate cap on the fees that can be charged by platforms when tickets are resold on their websites. We recognise the importance of service fees to the business models of resale platforms, and that any cap must afford flexibility for platforms to respond to changing market conditions and business needs. We are currently gathering evidence to determine what a suitable level would be for a service fees cap, and we will work closely with the industry before specifying the level of the cap at the point at which legislation is brought forward. We also intend to explore mechanisms to allow the level of the cap on service fees to be independently adjusted in response to changing market conditions, and options for how future reviews and decision-making could be undertaken.

Ticket limits 

There was broad agreement among fans and stakeholders who responded to our consultation that the only way to disincentivise the business model of organised ticket touts is to introduce a resale price cap. There was a strong signal that this should be the government’s priority as it determines next steps for reforming the sector.

While it was not considered to be an effective substitute for a price cap, respondents also expressed widespread support for the government’s proposal to introduce new limits which would prohibit someone from reselling more tickets to an event than they were entitled to purchase from the original vendor. 

The government has decided to introduce resale volume limits in order to reinforce restrictions applied by event organisers which are intended to ensure fair access for fans and prevent resellers from buying up large numbers of tickets. Given the sophisticated evasion tactics practised by many touts, and the difficulty of determining when tickets have been sold across multiple platforms, the government does not intend to require platforms to enforce this prohibition (see following section). However, definitively banning touts from flouting primary volume limits will work in combination with the price cap and the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018 to further deter touting and support prosecutions of individual touts where they occur.

Obligations on resale platforms 

Responses to the consultation strongly supported the view that resale platforms have a responsibility to ensure compliance with relevant consumer law provisions on their platform. There was majority support for requiring platforms to verify ticket ownership and key information about tickets listed on their platforms (including the information that the CRA requires resellers and platforms to provide), and for requiring them to provide refunds. 

However, many responses to the consultation also highlighted the:

• complexity of the ticketing market
• dependency of resale platforms on approaches taken by, and information from, the primary market
• consequent compliance difficulties that some of the proposed provisions could create

The government understands that certain market participants who already implement a price cap, when verifying key information such as the face value of a ticket, continue to rely heavily on human moderation – in other words, it would be unlikely that compliance with the new requirements proposed in the consultation could be totally automated. 

In this section, we will set out the government’s approach to ensuring that online platforms are held accountable for ticket listings on their sites.

Compliance with the price cap 

The government believes it is fundamental to the success of the resale price cap outlined that resale platforms strictly monitor and enforce compliance with the price cap on their platform. As mentioned, responsibility for verification of the price of a ticket was strongly supported by respondents to the consultation. And there are examples of platforms that already enforce capped resale, using a combination of automated and human moderation of proposed listings.

The government believes any obligation upon platforms to prevent resale above the price cap must be a strict one. Without a strict obligation on platforms, there is a real risk that measures taken by platforms that they considered to be reasonable or proportionate would fail in the face of novel approaches by sophisticated and determined professional touts. The highest-profile, highest-demand events – offering the biggest profits – may be particularly vulnerable.

As set out in the following section, the government recognises that in some cases, it may be impossible or unviable for larger platforms to guarantee compliance. However, the original price paid for a ticket – which, as discussed, will be clearly defined in legislation – is a discrete piece of information capable of being verified, provided adequate compliance measures are introduced and supported by the co-operation of primary sellers. 

The government therefore intends to impose a strict requirement that platforms facilitating the resale of capped tickets monitor and enforce compliance, by ensuring tickets are not resold for an amount above the original price. The government will consider whether this obligation should be supported by a requirement that primary sellers must co-operate with resale platforms’ efforts to verify the original price of a ticket, to support effective and efficient compliance.

Resale volume limits and verification of other information 

Respondents to the consultation, and those with whom the government has engaged during the consultation period, have been clear that third party ticket resale platforms provide an essential service, ensuring fans whose plans change can exchange tickets with minimal restrictions (though it is not desirable that they do so for profit). The government also supports this approach, which provides a safety net for consumers who can no longer attend events they previously purchased tickets for. The government also acknowledges that platforms facilitate the resale of tickets for a wide range of events, sold by a wide range of entities in a wide range of different formats, from paper tickets to personalised digital solutions like QR codes. Consequently, there is significant variation in the extent, consistency, time-sensitivity and format of information provided on or alongside the ticket.

Moreover, most tickets, receipts and other proofs of purchase are still merely evidence that a transaction took place. And there is no comprehensive, real-time database that captures information from all participants in the primary and secondary market to establish the status and characteristics of a ticket at any point in time. Nor, given the scope of these measures – applying as they do to all live events from small theatre shows to stadium gigs – does the government believe it realistic or proportionate to mandate the creation of such a database. 

In light of those factors, even where a resale platform makes significant efforts to establish the status of a ticket and the key information about it, the platform cannot guarantee that those efforts will be effective. And even where information from the primary market is accurate and can be verified, several respondents made the compelling point that it would be difficult or impossible for a platform to ensure that the same ticket is not simultaneously being offered for sale on multiple other platforms. 

Given these factors, the government does not intend to take forward measures to require platforms to:

• enforce volume limits
• verify ticket information (beyond the original price)
• ensure compliance with original terms and conditions over and above that which is required by the price cap and the CRA

The government recognises the compliance and enforcement challenges if more extensive requirements were imposed. For example, it may be necessary to introduce burdensome and inflexible regulations on primary sellers to ensure consistent, real-time flows of key information. 

Further, the government expects the introduction of the price cap to significantly reduce the incidence of deliberately misleading ticket listings on resale platforms. This is particularly likely to be the case where the policy of resale platforms is to release the money to resellers only after the event has taken place to ensure that tickets are genuine, with funds held in an escrow account until that point. In the circumstances, the benefits of wider volume limits and verification obligations may be limited, and would be outweighed by the likely costs both to the competitiveness of resale platforms and to the live events sector. 

The government will consider further whether it would be beneficial to include a more limited obligation for resale platforms to ensure a seller cannot breach a specified volume limit on their platform only.

Who should these obligations apply to? 

The approach outlined is to impose a narrow but strict obligation on a platform facilitating resale of capped tickets to ensure the cap is adhered to. 

The government’s intention is that this obligation should apply generally to any businesses that facilitate the resale of live events tickets to consumers. A concern expressed repeatedly during the consultation, and in the wider public debate, is that a price cap would drive uncapped resale onto alternative sites, such as social media platforms or ‘underground’ channels. The government considers that this should be guarded against by applying the above obligation generally (that is, to all businesses that facilitate the resale of live events tickets to consumers). 

Where businesses are unwilling to take on the compliance burden of enforcing the price cap, it is firmly expected that platforms take proactive measures to prevent the sale of live event tickets on their sites. This aligns with practices already adopted by certain marketplaces. eBay explicitly prohibits the listing of most live event tickets, demonstrating that such restrictions are feasible and effective. As significant or widespread deviation from the price cap is likely to be more straightforward to evidence than current breaches, the government expects the introduction of the price cap to improve enforcers’ ability to tackle platforms that enable touting. Online interface powers introduced by the DMCCA – which enable the courts or CMA to restrict access to online content, where they have found that it infringes consumer law – also add to the toolkit available to enforcers.

Enforcement framework

There was broad agreement among respondents that secondary ticketing laws must be backed up by an effective enforcement framework, to ensure that there is a strong deterrent against touting and that unlawful behaviour is penalised. Public enforcers also provided evidence of the challenges encountered in enforcing existing ticketing laws. In particular, notwithstanding recent successful prosecutions of touts led by National Trading Standards, enforcement against touts can be challenging, costly and time-consuming. The government’s approach, as set out, therefore focuses primarily on cutting off touts’ route to market, through online platforms that facilitate ticket resale. 

In this section, we will set out the government’s approach to the enforcement of new restrictions on the resale of live events tickets.

A newly strengthened consumer protection regime 

The government is committed to ensuring that UK consumers benefit from a strong set of consumer protections and that these are backed up by tough enforcement. A strong consumer protection framework is vital to safeguarding the interests of UK consumers:

• protecting them from rip-offs
• stimulating competition which drives down prices
• ultimately helping to keep more money in their pockets

It is also good for businesses – helping to create a level playing field by penalising unscrupulous competitors and giving consumers greater confidence to engage in markets. 

That is why we have recently implemented landmark reforms under part 3 of the DMCCA, giving the CMA and other public enforcers new powers to act more swiftly and effectively to protect UK consumers. The 2024 legislation updates and strengthens the enforcement of consumer protection law by: 

• providing the civil courts with new powers to impose civil monetary penalties for procedural and consumer law breaches and online interface orders to tackle online infringements

• giving the CMA new direct enforcement powers to decide if certain consumer laws have been breached, direct compliance, require a party to offer redress such as compensation, and impose monetary penalties, without having to go through the courts – increasing the speed and responsiveness of the CMA’s interventions 

The new powers set out are available against any trader that directs its activities at UK consumers, meaning businesses based outside the UK can still be the subject of enforcement action.

Tougher penalties 

Under the new regime, if a company infringes consumer law, the CMA can fine them up to 10% of their global turnover or £300,000 (whichever is higher). If a company breaches undertakings that it has given the CMA, it could face fines of up to 5% of its global turnover or £150,000 (whichever is higher) – with additional daily penalties for continued non-compliance. Failure to provide information when requested by the CMA (without a legitimate reason), concealing evidence, or providing false information can likewise result in a fine, with penalties of up to 1% of a business’ global turnover or £30,000 (whichever is higher), and additional daily penalties. 

The new regime also enables enforcers such as the CMA and local authority trading standards to apply to the courts to impose penalties of up to 10% of global turnover when dealing with consumer law breaches.

Approach to enforcing new secondary ticketing laws 

The government will legislate to extend these consumer enforcement powers to the new secondary ticketing laws set out earlier in this section, by adding those laws to schedules 15 and 16 of the DMCCA 2024. The government believes that the level of fines available under the DMCCA regime will act as an effective deterrent against non-compliance with secondary ticketing laws. The CMA and other enforcers will determine whether enforcement proceedings for breach of secondary ticketing laws should be taken in accordance with their usual prioritisation principles. 

During the consultation period, respondents – including consumer and fan groups and industry stakeholders – have emphasised the importance of enforcers being empowered to restrict access to non-compliant online ticket resellers. Through the DMCCA, the CMA and the courts are granted online interface powers, which can be used where other enforcement powers are unable to wholly address breaches of the law.

The CMA can apply to the courts for an online interface order or, alternatively, the CMA can itself consider issuing an online interface notice where it is satisfied that consumer law has been breached. Businesses and third parties – including internet service providers or search engines – can be required to remove, block or limit access to online content. This will help enforcers tackle online resale activity that infringes the price cap and other legal restrictions, including where online platforms fail to meet their obligations to police those restrictions.

Future consideration of a licensing regime 

Our consultation examined the case for a bespoke model of enforcement for the secondary ticketing market which would require online platforms to secure a licence to lawfully facilitate the resale of tickets for live events. In setting out this proposal, we acknowledged that a licensing regime would be a significant regulatory imposition, though if designed and implemented effectively, could make it easier to tackle breaches of the law. 

There was strong support from the CMA for licensing, who set out in their submission a series of potential benefits that a licensing regime could deliver based on their experience of previous enforcement action undertaken in the sector. The CMA assessed that a licensing regime could support swifter enforcement of secondary ticketing laws – for example, if a licensing authority was able to suspend or revoke a licence and exercise immediate take down powers should it identify non-compliance, or impose other punitive measures.

The CMA also posited that a licensing authority could impose conditions on licensed platforms that would make it easier for enforcers to access information about resellers, thereby helping to identify potential breaches of the law and secure the evidence necessary to prove a breach. Finally, the CMA suggested that a licensing regime would simplify enforcement against non-compliant platforms operating without a licence by reducing the evidential burden. 

There was a mixed response from other stakeholders. Some respondents agreed that licensing would provide a more advanced toolkit for tackling persistent abuse of ticketing laws and would help to engender greater transparency and accountability around the operation of resale platforms. Others were sceptical of the impact that licensing could have on improving enforcement outcomes, suggesting that it would create unnecessary complexity and impose new compliance costs on businesses that would be passed onto consumers. 

The government recognises the arguments in favour of a licensing regime but, based on the evidence currently available, we do not believe that it would be a proportionate and cost-effective intervention to address issues in the secondary ticketing market. The government is mindful that a licensing regime for secondary ticketing platforms would constitute a highly intensive intervention in a small market, and would require the establishment of new regulatory architecture, imposing a greater administrative burden on both the public and private sector. Therefore, having carefully considered the different perspectives offered in response to the consultation, we have decided not to take forward a licensing regime at this time. 

However, the government is committed to monitoring the evolution of the secondary ticketing market and the impact of new legislation. Though we have decided not to take forward a licensing regime at this time, the government will reconsider this position if the market does not respond satisfactorily to the measures we bring forward.

Industry-led actions 

The government welcomes the varied insights provided by respondents in relation to potential voluntary actions led by the primary market. While many of the themes raised overlapped with earlier parts of the consultation, this section provided a space for respondents to raise wider concerns, including issues around transparency, inclusivity, enforcement and general functioning of the ticketing market. 

Some of the issues raised overlapped significantly with the issues being explored in the government’s call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector (for example, concerns about dynamic pricing). Where this was the case, we will address those concerns in our response to that call for evidence.

Distribution of tickets in the primary market 

The government recognises that the way tickets are distributed, sold and resold plays a major role in shaping consumer experiences and influencing the development of the secondary ticketing market. A number of respondents proposed actions that primary market participants – including event organisers, promoters and ticketing platforms – could take to help reduce exploitative resale and support compliance by resale platforms with the measures already set out. 

We agree that industry action is important in limiting the opportunities for speculative buying and resale. While the government intends to bring forward new legislation to tackle exploitative touting practices, there is also more that primary sellers could do. We encourage the sector to reflect seriously on the evidence and ideas provided through this consultation – and our call for evidence on pricing practices in the primary ticketing market – and consider where changes in sales practices could better support fans. This could include building on existing good practice to develop and promote guidance to industry and consumers to embed and communicate these changes including in the following areas.

Distribution methods and technological safeguards 

We recognise that some organisers already use alternative distribution methods – such as verified fans schemes, staggered sales or ticket ballots – and that these can help reduce sudden surges in demand that are often exploited by touts. We would support further exploration of these approaches where proportionate, operationally feasible, and effective in improving fair access to tickets. However, we also recognise concerns raised about the potential for overcomplicating the sales process, the increased cost of such measures and the importance of ensuring any changes are clearly communicated to fans in advance. 

We also agree that greater use of technology has an important role to play. We recognise the scale of the challenge posed by bots and other tools used by touts to harvest tickets and commend the investment that platforms have already made to improve detection and prevention. The government encourages further innovation in this space, particularly where it helps combat large-scale ticket harvesting and supports secure fan-to-fan transfer. At the same time, we are mindful that these tools can be expensive to implement and that not all organisations will have the same resources available to invest in such safeguards.

Resale and refunds 

The government welcomes the increasing adoption by primary platforms of integrated resale facilities and encourages others to follow suit. We recognise the value to fans of being able to return or resell tickets easily. We agree that resale functionality on primary platforms, with clear terms and the commitment to fair pricing, offers a safe and secure option for fans whose preference is to resell their ticket through the original vendor. 

However, we also note that many primary platforms place restrictions on resale which might include a requirement to resell through an ‘authorised’ route – sometimes limited to the primary seller’s own resale platform – or may not ‘turn on’ their integrated resale facility until the event has sold out or even immediately before the event. The justification for imposing resale restrictions is often to protect against tickets being resold by touts for excessive prices on third-party resale platforms that operate without a price cap. However, this can disadvantage genuine fans in some circumstances – for example, where someone needs to offload a ticket due to a change in circumstances, but they are unable to resell it via the primary seller as the event has not yet sold out. 

The government is clear that any restrictions should be proportionate and consistent with competition and consumer law, especially in the context of new legislation which will prohibit the resale of tickets for profit and place restrictions on the number of tickets that an individual can resell. We recognise and agree with the broad sentiment expressed in response to the consultation that if the price cap and other measures are implemented effectively, there may be less justification for restrictive resale terms to be applied by primary sellers. 

Primary platforms are encouraged to review their resale policies in view of new legislation to ensure that they best serve the needs of their customers. Meanwhile, it is vital that resale platforms continue to adhere to the requirements under the CRA 2015 to clearly display details of any event-wide resale restrictions, enabling consumers to make properly informed purchasing decisions.

Consumer information 

We also agree that providing consumers with accessible information about how to purchase and resell tickets safely and legally is important. This is particularly vital given the increasing prevalence of internet-based ticketing scams by fraudsters operating on social media platforms. We will continue to explore opportunities to support awareness campaigns, by industry, fans groups and public bodies, particularly when new legislation is brought forward and implemented. 

We recognise concerns raised about the:

• relationship between primary and secondary markets
• role of dynamic pricing
• perceived dominance of a small number of vertically integrated businesses

There is no suggestion that sponsor allocations or event scheduling practices breach consumer law. However we acknowledge that greater transparency about ticket availability and the likelihood of additional dates could help fans make more informed purchasing decisions and reduce reliance on the secondary market. We would encourage industry to consider how to achieve this.

Accessibility and inclusivity 

We received a number of representations from people with disabilities (or from other respondents on behalf of people with disabilities) about the accessibility of live events and experiences of using the ticket resale market. 

The government is clear that access to live events should be fair and inclusive. While many event organisers already make provision for fans with disabilities, we acknowledge the need for systems and processes that are flexible, easy to use and inclusive – including for those without access to digital devices. We also expect event organisers, ticketing platforms and venues to be compliant at all times with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 which requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage when accessing services.

Transparency 

Finally, we acknowledge calls for a clearer baseline of standards for resale. The existing legal framework already sets out clear requirements on transparency and information provision under consumer protection law. However, some concerns raised related not to breaches of the law, but to practices that, while legal, may be seen as undermining trust or fairness in the market. The government encourages industry participants, co-ordinated by STAR, to reflect on how their practices affect consumer confidence and access and consider adopting voluntary improvements.

For example, improvements around clarity of pricing structures, the fairness of resale restrictions, or the ease with which tickets can be transferred securely between fans. We will continue to engage with the sector on how best to promote consistent, fair and consumer-friendly approaches to ticket resale, and how the sector can make clear and consistent pricing information available to support resale platforms’ compliance with their obligations around the price cap. 

Next steps 

We note the valuable role that STAR has already played in facilitating cross-industry initiatives to improve consumer confidence, make ticket buying safer, and combat ticket fraud, including its formulation of model terms and conditions for STAR members. We welcome STAR’s commitment to convene the sector, including but not limited to its members, to produce new guidance on compliance with these new measures and on best practice, taking account of responses to this consultation and the call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector.

Conclusion 

The government would like to thank all respondents for their submissions to this consultation. Your input has been invaluable and has informed our decision to take forward the following measures:

• price cap – preventing resale of tickets for profit is the key intervention that can eliminate professional touting and put fans back at the heart of live events where they belong. The government intends to bring forward both a cap on resale prices – based on the original price paid for the ticket inclusive of unavoidable fees – and a cap on service fees chargeable by resale platforms, to ensure there is no mechanism by which profits from resale can be funnelled back to touts

• volume limits – to support the anti-touting price cap, the government will ban individuals from reselling more tickets than they could have purchased in the primary sale

• platform obligations – resale platforms represent touts’ primary route to market, making it essential that all resale platforms take robust anti-tout action. To ensure this happens, the government will seek to impose strict obligations on platforms to enforce compliance with the price cap on their sites. However, the government does not propose to require platforms to enforce prohibitions on volume limits or impose further verification requirements beyond those already imposed by the CRA, in recognition of the significant and potentially insuperable compliance difficulties involved. A thriving independent resale sector provides great benefit to fans, and the government has no wish to stifle it, so long as platforms show they can robustly and consistently enforce a price cap

We recognise that robust enforcement of the new rules, against resale platforms as well as touts, will be critical to their success. The government will provide for the new rules to be enforceable through part 3 of the DMCCA, enabling the imposition of fines of up to 10% of global turnover for breaches. We firmly believe that this will act as a more than sufficient deterrent to those minded to break the law, but if non-compliance by particular platforms emerges as an issue after the introduction of the price cap, the government is prepared to revisit the case for a licensing regime.

The government will legislate when parliamentary time allows. 

This approach is tough but fair and aimed squarely at eliminating the scourge of professional touting from the live events sector, without unduly compromising the independent resale market or imposing unwieldy new regulatory structures. The measures are aimed at improving fairness for fans, while supporting the continued growth of the UK’s live events sector.

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

1. For question 7, respondents were able to select multiple answers. 342 respondents provided an answer to this question. ↩

2. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 recently extended these powers to the CMA by amending section 93 of, and schedule 10 to, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to make the CMA an enforcement authority for the purposes of chapter 5 of part 3 of that act. ↩