Policy submission

DBT's consultation on the resale of live events tickets - Which? response

Which? response to DBT's Putting Fans First - A consultation on the resale of live events tickets
3 min read
Sue DaviesHead of Consumer Rights and Food Policy
Stephen McDonaldHead of Economics

Which? welcomes this opportunity to respond to the government’s consultation on the resale of live event tickets. This market is out of control, leaving consumers vulnerable to being ripped off, regardless of how much experience they have of buying tickets. It therefore now requires a different and much tougher regulatory approach in the interests of consumers, as well as the live events industry.

The purpose of a well-functioning resale market should be to enable people who have bought a ticket (or tickets) and find that they are no longer able to attend, to be able to sell these tickets to other genuine fans, who missed out on the opportunity to buy tickets in the original sale. These buyers should be able to have confidence that they have bought a genuine ticket at a fair price that will enable them to access the venue and attend the event. 

 Which? has conducted a nationally representative survey to understand people’s experience of the resale market and also asked our supporters to share their experiences. This reinforces this purpose for the resale market and the extent to which it is currently failing consumers.

  • The main reason people use secondary ticketing sites to buy tickets is because official sites have sold out (61%). However, only 1 in 10 UK adults actually purchase from secondary sites.
  • Ticketing confusion is common - 61% of UK adults say they struggle to understand the differences between ticketing websites. 14% of secondary ticket buyers didn't realise they were on a secondary ticket website at the time of purchase. This was reinforced by our supporters: “Viagogo was the first site that came up when searching for tickets and my unsuspecting teenage daughter didn’t realise it was a reselling site.”
  • 21% of people buying tickets through secondary ticketing websites or social media experienced issues. Of these, 60% never made it to the event. Reasons included being refused entry, receiving a fake or invalid ticket, or never receiving the ticket at all. Additionally, 30% were charged extra fees at the venue.
  • In the case of the experience of ticket sellers, reselling is relatively rare at a nationally representative level - just 8% of UK adults have resold a ticket online. Most do so out of necessity: 63% because they could no longer attend and 42% to recover costs. 22% were unable to get a refund from the original seller so they sold on a secondary website.

In response to the government’s proposals:

  • A price cap should be introduced to ensure that tickets can only be re-sold at the price the tickets were bought for, including any fees that had to be paid in order to buy the original ticket. The drip pricing provisions within the Digital Market Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) should ensure that these fees are included in the headline price at the time the consumer makes the purchase. We do not think that there should be any uplift permitted. This cap should apply across all events. Our consumer research found that the majority of people also believe that the fairest cap for selling tickets online is one that covers the face value plus fees only - 35% ranked this in first place, followed by a face value cap only (32%). Preference for a face value plus fees only cap was even stronger among those who have resold event tickets in the past with 48% selecting this as their first preference.
  • Resale platforms should be required by law to verify that the seller owns a ticket before it can be listed for resale on their site and also verify key information about a ticket, such as the original price and location within the venue. They should also be responsible for preventing the resale of tickets when the primary seller has prohibited resale.
  • A tougher enforcement regime is required, including strengthening the levels of penalties for breaches of the updated legislation. We agree that the particular problems in this market may necessitate a licensing regime and the Competition and Markets Authority makes a compelling case for why this is even more important if there is a price cap to prevent illegal sales shifting to other sites, such as social media sites or pop ups. It is therefore important that these sites are also included within a licensing regime.