Prohibits a reseller or person affiliated with a reseller from offering for resale or engaging in a resale of an admission ticket unless the reseller or person affiliated with the reseller has actual or constructive possession of the admission ticket or explicit authorization in a written contract to obtain the admission ticket from an operator, a ticket seller or a person the operator or ticket seller authorized to purchase the admission ticket in an initial sale.
Summary
HB 4024 updates Oregon’s ticket-resale law to target speculative ticket sales and deceptive online practices in the market for admission tickets to entertainment events. The bill prohibits a person from willfully using or selling software designed to bypass ticketing controls, such as measures intended to preserve fair access during presales or limit bulk purchases. It also bars selling tickets obtained through such software.
The measure further restricts the use of misleading domain names and websites that imitate a venue, event, performer, or official ticketing source without written authorization. It also limits “speculative” resale activity by prohibiting a reseller, or someone affiliated with a reseller, from offering a ticket for resale unless they already possess the ticket or have explicit written contractual authority to obtain it from an authorized source. Violations are treated as unlawful practices under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, making them enforceable through existing consumer-protection remedies.
Impact
The bill amends ORS 646A.115 and expands state consumer-protection law to cover ticket-bot software, deceptive ticket websites, and unauthorized speculative resales. It gives operators, ticket sellers, and resellers clearer statutory tools to challenge conduct that interferes with equitable ticket distribution or misleads consumers about official ticket sources. Because violations are classified as unlawful practices under ORS 646.608, affected parties may face civil enforcement under Oregon’s consumer protection statutes, including actions under ORS 646.632 and 646.638.
Sentiment
The voting history shows strong bipartisan support for the bill. It passed the House committee by a 6-3 vote, then the House floor by 52-2, and later passed the Senate committee unanimously 4-0 and the Senate floor 29-0. The broad margins suggest the bill was viewed favorably as a consumer-protection and anti-fraud measure.
Contention
The main policy tension appears to be between protecting consumers and event operators from ticket bots, misleading resale sites, and speculative listings, versus preserving flexibility for legitimate resale businesses and affiliated market participants. The bill’s restrictions on software, domain names, website presentation, and pre-possession resale could be seen as burdensome by secondary ticket sellers, but the recorded votes indicate little public legislative opposition. The only notable dissent came in the House committee, where three members voted no, suggesting some concern at the committee stage about the scope of the restrictions or their effect on the resale market.