HB 297, the “Transparency and Improvement in Consumer Knowledge for Entertainment Ticketing (TICKET) Act,” creates a new Florida statute governing the sale and resale of tickets for entertainment events. The bill applies to operators, ticket resellers, and online ticket marketplaces and requires them to make clear, conspicuous disclosures during the listing and purchase process, including the total ticket price, service charges, taxes, surcharges, refund policies, and event-change/cancellation information. It also requires proof of purchase within 24 hours and requires purchasers to acknowledge certain disclosures before completing a transaction.
The bill also places restrictions on resale practices. It prohibits selling duplicate copies of the same ticket, using line-waiters to buy tickets for resale when prohibited, advertising or selling tickets before they are actually available without permission, and using misleading domain names or web addresses that imitate a venue or event. It further bars circumvention of security or identity-validation measures used to enforce ticket limits and prohibits resale of tickets acquired through such circumvention. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to request information about technology and security measures in alleged violations and to enforce the new section, with trade-secret protections maintained when information is shared with the Attorney General. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
In practical terms, the bill would expand state regulation of the ticket marketplace and impose new compliance obligations on primary sellers, resale platforms, and ticket brokers. It would likely affect online ticketing businesses, venue operators, and consumers by standardizing price transparency and limiting deceptive or evasive resale practices. The bill applies only to entities with at least $5,000 in annual aggregate transactions in the prior fiscal year, which narrows its reach to commercial actors rather than casual sellers.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is consumer-protection oriented, emphasizing transparency, anti-fraud safeguards, and clearer information for buyers. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, there is no documented debate in the provided materials, but the bill’s structure suggests support for stronger oversight of ticket resale practices and online marketplace conduct.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the restrictions on resale platforms and the anti-circumvention provisions, which could be viewed by ticket brokers and online marketplaces as burdensome or as limiting secondary-market flexibility. Venue operators may favor the anti-scalping and anti-impersonation provisions, while resellers could object to the disclosure requirements, limits on presales, and the Secretary of Commerce’s enforcement and information-gathering authority.
HB 297 would create s. 817.362, Florida Statutes, establishing a new regulatory framework for ticket sales and resales for entertainment venues. It would impose disclosure, anti-deception, and anti-circumvention requirements on operators, ticket resellers, and online ticket marketplaces, while also authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to investigate and enforce violations and to receive security-related information, including trade secrets protected under public-records law.
The bill appears broadly consumer-protective and aimed at increasing transparency in ticket purchasing and resale. With no committee transcript or vote record provided, there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate, but the text suggests a policy preference for curbing deceptive resale practices and improving buyer information rather than expanding market flexibility.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s restrictions on resale practices, its prohibition on using venue- or event-like domain names, and its ban on circumventing ticket-purchase controls and ticket limits. Online ticket marketplaces and ticket resellers may view these provisions as operationally burdensome or as limiting secondary-market activity, while venues and consumer advocates are likely to support them as anti-fraud and anti-scalping measures. The Secretary of Commerce’s authority to request technology and security information may also raise concerns about confidentiality and compliance costs.