The D.C. RESALE Act is moving in the right direction.
Introduced in April 2025, the original idea capped resale prices at face value plus 10%, banned “spec” ticketing, and imposed all-in pricing and refund requirements.
As originally conceived, it was a direct attack on the secondary market.
The resellers were villains. The primary market victims.
On Monday, the committee in charge of the act released a markup…the conclusion: that won’t work.
The report says that a resale-only cap would create “price-gouging whack-a-mole.” Shifting inflation to the primary market while weakening independent resale competition.
The revised bill scraps the 110% cap. Instead, the bill gives the mayor the authority to regulate fees, dynamic pricing, and resale markups for both primary and secondary markets.
I don’t know if this works. But it is progress.
The committee has recognized what I’ve said over the years: you can’t fix the ticket market by regulating only one side of it.
The current ticket market is a casino.
The conventional wisdom is that the battle is between the primary and the secondary market, but that’s too simplistic.
It often ends up being fans and content producers versus the world.
This is an interesting moment to reflect on this because the political context matters.
Janeese Lewis George won the Democratic primary for mayor on a “people first” platform. Her policies are aggressive on affordability and living quality. She is likely to be much more forceful against the business-as-usual approach that often comes to pass in the District.
This means that the blank check the RESALE Act gives the mayor could be signed by someone who would actually use it.
A question about what the rules should be is less theoretical than it has been in years.
In truth, the answer may be imminent.
Right now: we see a blank check.
Things can change, but the current idea is to move discretion from the platforms to the politicians.
In D.C., lobbyists are everywhere.
That’s a problem because discretion without a framework is a vacuum. Vacuums would be filled by the people who built the current system.
That’s not a great solution either.
As a District resident, what would a better, fairer ticket market look like?
My stance
I’m not against resale. I’m not for wide open, “free market” resale.
I’m not someone who is going to say that the primary market is absolutely infallible either.
Both sides have earned their fair share of scrutiny.
The choice isn’t resale vs. no resale.
It is actually a choice between a regulated market and a “free-for-all, buyer beware” market.
That’s what the absence of rules creates.
Not a “free market” but a “free-for-all.”
Both sides need rules. This is what a functioning market requires.
Rules, regulations, and enforcement.
I’m not tied to either side of the industry. I’ve always been tied to the fan first.
I’ve always believed that teams, bands, venues, etc. should have the ability to control their relationship with their fans.
That relationship has been broken for years…both sides have aided in this.
What I’d like to offer up is a framework, some ideas for what rules should look like. Built on a simple idea: a ticket market should close the distance between the content producer and the fan, not widen it.
The Fan First Framework
For Content Producers:
1. Instant data transfer. At purchase, the buyer’s data goes to the content producer. The wedge between performer and fan collapses. The team can build a relationship. The fan is no longer an anonymous transaction. A bonus: the data can’t be sold without the fan’s explicit consent.
2. Dynamic pricing is opt-in, not opt-out. The default is no dynamic pricing. You can turn it on, but you have to work through a conscious workflow…specific questions, deliberate choices, admitting what you are doing. These questions will be designed by the content producer to reflect their strategy…not someone else’s. The algorithm is a decision, not a default.
3. No vertical integration across business lines. The ticket technology producer also can’t own venues and promote shows. Vertical integration eliminates competition. An independent platform can’t compete because it can’t offer tours. A venue can’t be forced to pick a technology partner out of fear of losing shows. The fan doesn’t get stuck with whatever awful experience they have dumped on them. The “Velvet Hammer” has no place in a fair market.
For Fans:
1. Ban “spec” selling. You can’t list a ticket that you don’t have in hand. Digital tickets must be transferable immediately. Physical tickets must be deliverable the next business day. You can’t deliver? You can’t list.
2. Ban ticketing harvesting. No one can use automated software, multiple accounts, or outsourced networks to circumvent per-person purchase limits. A ticket bought using harvesting is void. The platform that facilitated the harvest is liable.
3. Ban the tools of extraction. No automated purchase software. No bots. Outsource your sales floor to an overseas boiler room? No. Enforce the federal BOTS Act as the standard in the District. No price changes once a purchase session has begun. The price on the landing page is the price you pay.
4. Mandatory refund protection. Every ticket includes the right to refund or exchange a ticket with proof of a qualifying life event: job loss, business trip, or illness. The point of purchase must honor it. Content producers can partner with an insurer or handle the claims themselves. The premium is worked into the price of the ticket.
5. The right to know who you’re buying from. Every ticket must disclose the seller. Venue? Team? Verified fan? A licensed reseller? Cool. Those corporate structures meant to hide the truth? No. Fans deserve to know who they are buying from. Buying from a reseller is a choice. Buying blind is a con.
6. Enforcement with teeth. A rule without a penalty is PR. This framework needs enforcement. Violations are subject to fines and other forms of enforcement, with a portion of the fines directed to a dedicated enforcement fund. The enforcement can also be funded by a percentage of ticket taxes collected. The Attorney General has the responsibility and authority to audit platforms. Platforms that allow illegal behavior…are liable for those actions.
For the Community:
1. Taxpayer benefit clause. If your venue, team, or event gets public money…the public deserves a return on investment. A District Discount. Reserved inventory. Deals on food and beverage, merchandise. The benefit is tied to the lease or Certificate of Occupancy. No more one-way street on subsidizing entertainment.
2. Public accountability. If you take public money, you open your books to the D.C. Attorney General. Model this on the UK requirement that football clubs publish their accounts. Want to run your team, venue, or event into the ground…the public deserves to be able to see what that looks like. Let shame be part of the enforcement.
3. Give back clause. Community-funded organizations must give back to the community. Clinics, camps, community events, internships, jobs programs. Mandatory when the public has a stake. Incentivized with tax rebates when it doesn’t.
Objections to an idea like this will come from all sides.
“We shouldn’t allow any resale.”
“A black market…”
On and on.
Resale isn’t the devil.
The black market already exists.
The challenge is regulated markets or an unregulated “free-for-all” disguised as some “free market.”
The current market is not a regulated marketplace. It is a casino with competing PR budgets.
The question isn’t whether regulation will create a black market. The question is whether we let the existing black market stay hidden or shed some light on how the industry really works.
Now Matters
The antitrust case against Live Nation was a moment when people were able to see evidence of how the ticket business works.
A New York jury found the company guilty of acting as an illegal monopoly.
The challenge is that the remedy is probably years away. A judgment will be handed down. Appeals will drag on.
The structural breakup that advocates hope for may never materialize. Or…it may come too late to matter.
The framework can help now.
These nine provisions don’t just constrain the dominant player. They create space for other platforms to compete.
Limit the contract lengths of ticket technologies. Open up a transition period for all current contracts as soon as the law is effective.
Ban spec selling. Level the field for platforms that don’t live on float.
Ban vertical integration. Open the door for technology platforms that aren’t venue owners or promoters.
Mandate instant data transfer. Give content producers the ability to build a deeper relationship with their fans…immediately, no matter what platform they bought on.
These rules aren’t just about extraction. These rules open the door to more competition.
Competition is the key to a successful market…after all.
A Fork…
The committee on public works and operations has recognized some real limits to the initial idea behind the D.C. RESALE Act.
A shift to holistic regulation is real progress.
Janeese Lewis George is the presumptive next mayor after winning the Democratic primary. She campaigned on putting people first.
The blank check that the bill offers is an opportunity that she might take.
Lewis George could use this authority to enact rules that close the distance between fans and content producers. Or…she can let lobbyists fill the vacuum, as so often happens in D.C.
The choice is hers.
The framework is a map.
Every provision I offer answers one question: Does this rule make the ticket market less of a casino, or does it just change the pit boss?
The D.C. bill, as offered, moves the pit boss. This framework closes the casino.
District residents deserve a real solution.