State legislation targeting ticket market is fan-friendly

Regarding "Letting scalpers stick it to consumers" (Our Views, Dec. 6):

I'm disappointed by the misinformation in the Tribune's recent editorial on ticketing legislation. Contrary to the editorial, which was prepared without consulting me or any of the legislation's supporters, this bill ensures that consumers are informed and their property rights are protected in the ticket market.

The truth is that HB 225 will protect consumers from unfair practices used by ticket sellers such as Ticketmaster, including restrictions on what fans can do with tickets they have purchased, and will require more transparency from ticket sellers who are using publicly funded venues while often pre-selling thousands of the best tickets to favored customers.

With regard to transparency, HB 225 will simply require event producers and ticket issuers to publicly disclose how many seats are actually available for sale when ticket sales commence.

Similar to the rule requiring auto dealers to disclose how many cars they have available at an advertised price, this is a fair, pro-consumer practice that should be non-controversial.

Unfortunately, big ticket sellers often pre-sell thousands of tickets to VIPs, premium credit card holders, fan club members and event sponsors. As a result, fans don't have access to the best seats and don't know why they can get only nosebleed seats or why the event sells out so quickly. Ticket issuers oppose this bill because they don't want fans to know how few tickets are made available to the general public.

HB 225 also addresses the growing problem of restrictive tickets, particularly paperless tickets that require fans to show photo ID and their purchasing credit card to gain entry to an event.

These restrictive tickets prohibit fans from giving away or reselling tickets on the secondary market, taking away consumers' property rights. Tickets can't be given as gifts, and fans who paid for tickets but cannot attend an event are unable to recoup their loss or allow a friend or family member to go in their place.

Some restrictive tickets can be transferred, but only on the ticket seller's own resale website. These restrictive resale websites almost always prohibit resale of tickets below face value, and they often pick and choose which fans can sell tickets above face value and which fans cannot.

For example, one NBA team permits season-ticket holders to sell tickets at 20 times their face value but requires single-game ticket purchasers to resell at face value.

However, most troublesome is that ticket sellers' restricted resale markets are often used to further harm consumers. Event producers and ticket issuers have been caught "guiding" consumers away from the primary ticket website to the resale website, where they have put the best tickets for sale at prices well above face value.

For example, Ticketmaster was forced to settle with the Federal Trade Commission regarding the use of its own secondary-sale website, TicketsNow, for bait-and-switch pricing to 14 Bruce Springsteen concerts in 2009. Ticketmaster informed consumers that no tickets were available but then referred the consumers to their resale site and charged consumers up to four times the original face value.

Your editorial provided erroneous information about this legislation. HB 225 will not affect in any way how a venue can choose to restrict the number of tickets that a customer can purchase, and it certainly does not make the original ticket seller responsible for refunding tickets purchased above face-value on the secondary market.

HB 225 will provide Florida consumers with more transparency in the ticket market and protect them from unfair restrictive ticket practices.