Ticket scalping laws vary widely by state, reflecting a patchwork of consumer protection aims, venue rights, and how much regulators are willing to intervene in the resale market. Some states cap resale prices or require refunds and disclosures, while others impose venue-based restrictions or license requirements for resellers. The result is a complex landscape where legality often depends on location, the type of event, and the manner in which tickets are resold. The following article compiles the key provisions and notable trends drawn from the provided material, organizing them by state or region and highlighting systemic patterns in ticket resale regulation.
States with price caps or bans within certain contexts
Arizona law makes it a petty offense to sell an admission ticket above face value (plus taxes/fees) within 200 feet of a venue. A.R.S. § 13‑3718 prohibits reselling a ticket purchased for the purpose of resale for more than the printed price if within 200 feet of the stadium or parking lot, and changing the printed price without the original vendor’s permission is prohibited.
Kentucky law restricts ticket resale. KRS § 518.070 makes it illegal to resell tickets for more than face value unless the seller is an official ticket agent or licensed ticket broker.
Massachusetts has one of the oldest anti-s scalping statutes: under M.G.L. c. 140 § 185D, a licensed ticket reseller may not resell any ticket to a theatrical exhibition, public show or amusement for more than $2 above the printed price, except for service charges.
New York has a comprehensive regime: Arts & Cultural Affairs Law §§ 25.30-25.34 require ticket resellers to be licensed, prohibit bots, prohibit reselling within 1,500 feet of venues, require disclosure of total prices and seat locations, and mandate refund guarantees when events are cancelled or tickets are not delivered.
Oklahoma prohibits reselling tickets for more than face value on the property where the event is held without the owner’s consent (Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 903). Texas law similarly makes it a Class B misdemeanor to sell a ticket for more than face value on the premises or within 1,000 feet of the venue entrance if the seller knows the event is in progress.
Rhode Island requires license for resellers and caps resale price at $3 above face value plus legitimate service charges (Gen. Laws § 5‑22‑26).
South Carolina prohibits reselling tickets at a price more than $1 above face value within 500 feet of a sports or entertainment venue without owner’s written permission (S.C. Code § 16‑17‑710).
Virginia prohibits selling tickets for more than face value on the property or inside the structure of the venue (Va. Code § 18.2‑487.5); resale offsite or online is legal, and there is no statewide price cap.
States with resale allowed but with disclosure or refund requirements
California does not cap ticket resale prices statewide, but Civil Code § 1739.1 requires refund guarantees and prohibits deceptive practices by ticket sellers, such as listing tickets the seller doesn’t own. California Penal Code section 346 (scalping) outlines criminal penalties for unauthorized resale at more than printed price on venue grounds, but enforcement and penalties depend on specific circumstances.
Colorado amended its consumer protection law in 2023. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6‑1‑208, an operator may not deny entry to an event solely because the ticket was purchased from a reseller.
Connecticut law does not set a statewide price cap but regulates ticket resellers. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53‑289c requires any person who resells tickets via the Internet for more than face value to provide a refund guarantee if the event is cancelled, the ticket fails to grant admission, or is not delivered (similar to North Carolina).
Delaware has no statewide ticket scalping statute, according to the cited materials, and the NCSL records no 2024 ticket resale legislation for Delaware.
District of Columbia does not cap resale prices but requires compliance with consumer-protection laws. D.C. Code § 47‑3903 prohibits selling tickets on public streets without a license and authorizes regulation of scalping.
Florida allows resale but prohibits reselling within the venue property without the owner’s consent, and resellers must guarantee refunds if events are cancelled, tickets are counterfeit, or fail to grant admission.
Georgia requires licensing for ticket brokers and restricts where tickets may be resold. O.C.G.A. § 43‑4B‑25 allows only licensed ticket brokers to resell tickets at more than face value, and O.C.G.A. § 43‑4B‑28 limits resale near large venues.
Hawaii does not have a statewide anti-scalping statute, though the 2024 legislature introduced bills to cap ticket fees and require refund guarantees, which were not enacted.
Illinois requires ticket brokers to be licensed and to provide refund guarantees; the Illinois Ticket Sale and Resale Act mandates refunds if events are cancelled, tickets fail to grant admission, or are not delivered.
Indiana prohibits reselling tickets above face value on the property where the event takes place without venue consent, and Ind. Code § 24‑4‑21‑2 allows venues to regulate or prohibit resale on the property.
Maine prohibits reselling or offering to resell tickets for more than the printed price plus reasonable service charges.
Maryland imposes disclosure and refund obligations for ticket sellers and resellers; 2024 Md. Code Bus. Reg. § 17‑1206 requires refund guarantees and prohibits deceptive marketing (enacted via 2023 Ch. 305).
Michigan repealed its anti-scalping statute in 2014; there is currently no statewide cap on resale prices.
States with limited or no statewide regulation; city-specific or venue-specific rules
Alabama does not generally restrict resale price; Section 8‑19E‑2 of the Alabama Code permits an admission ticket originally issued by a venue to be resold at any price (repealed anti‑scalping law in 2009).
Alaska has no state statute regulating ticket resale; the NCSL notes no 2024 ticket-resale legislation.
Arkansas prohibits reselling tickets to high‑school or college athletic events or charitable events above the printed price (Ark. Code § 5‑63‑201).
Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska (except certain distance-based restrictions in Nebraska’s case), North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming generally lack comprehensive statewide scalping prohibitions; several localities impose their own rules or allow resale with conditions.
New Mexico and New Jersey impose licensing and disclosure obligations; New Jersey prohibits reselling tickets without a license and requires that resale price (including service charges) be clearly disclosed (N.J. Stat. § 56:8‑26 et seq.).
Notable trends in state approaches
License regimes for ticket brokers are common in states with stricter control, such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and North Carolina, aiming to sanction responsible intermediaries and improve transparency for consumers. Several states require refunds on cancelled events or non-delivered tickets, reflecting a consumer-protection approach to secondary markets. Price caps or distance-based restrictions near venues appear in only a subset of states, often tied to direct venue control rather than a broad state-wide policy. Some states emphasize disclosure of total price, including fees and taxes, and ban the use of bots in online resale markets, signaling a push toward transparency and anti-fraud measures. In the United States as a whole, ticket resale remains a largely unsettled domain, with many jurisdictions permitting resale but imposing varying conditions to curb deceptive practices, counterfeit tickets, and market manipulation by automated bots and speculators.
Key terms and concepts in ticket resale law
Ticket scalping, ticket resale, ticket brokers, licensed brokers, refund guarantees, disclosure requirements, bots banned, price caps, venue-based restrictions, counterfeit tickets, and primary vs. secondary markets.
Illustrative examples and mechanisms in practice
Some resellers operate through networks of ticket contacts, including season ticket holders and brokers; online exchanges and marketplaces enable broader participation, sometimes with bots or automated purchasing tools. Legislation addressing bots, license requirements, and refund guarantees aims to curb deceptive marketing and protect consumers, while price caps try to limit excessive markups on high-demand events.
Ticket reselling rules contested months after taking effect
| State/Region | Key Rule | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona | resale within 200 feet cap above face value | Penalty: petty offense |
| New York | License for brokers; bot ban; resale limits near venues | Comprehensive framework |
| California | no statewide cap; refunds required; scalping penalties on grounds | Mixed approach |
| Massachusetts | resale cap: $2 above printed price (theater, public show, amusement) | Licensed resellers only |
| District of Columbia | no cap; license for street sales; consumer protection laws | Regulated with licenses |
Potential implications for consumers and markets
Consumers benefit from clearer disclosure, refunds, and licensing regimes that create recourse for problems with delivered or admitted tickets. For event organizers and venues, scalping laws influence how tickets can be moved through the secondary market, potentially reducing opportunistic price exploitation and counterfeit risks. The interplay between primary sellers (venues, promoters) and secondary platforms continues to evolve, with policy shifts often responding to high-profile abuses or technological changes such as bot-driven purchases.