Consumer Advocate Urges Senators to Look Beyond ‘Bots and Scalpers’ Ahead of Senate Hearing on Ticketing

As the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Technology, and Data Privacy prepares to gavel in today’s high-profile ticketing hearing, a major consumer advocacy group is urging lawmakers not to let the conversation collapse into a familiar script: blame scalpers, blame bots, and leave the structure of the market untouched.

In a letter dated Jan. 27 and submitted for the record ahead of the Jan. 28 hearing, National Consumers League (NCL) Vice President John D. Breyault frames the live event ticketing experience as “broken by design,” arguing that the repeated outcomes fans complain about—higher prices, fewer meaningful choices, and a buying process that feels stacked against consumers—are not an accident of modern commerce. They are, he writes, what market power looks like when it is allowed to harden over time.

“When a market consistently produces higher prices, fewer choices, and worse outcomes for consumers, that is not a mystery; it is market power at work,” Breyault wrote, pointing to vertical integration and consolidation as the central forces shaping what fans encounter at checkout.

The subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), is scheduled to hold the hearing at 2:30 p.m. ET under the title “Fees Rolled on All Summer Long: Examining the Live Entertainment Industry.” The witness list includes entertainer Kid Rock; Live Nation Entertainment executive Dan Wall; Ticket Policy Forum Executive Director Brian Berry; and David Weingarden of the Colorado Independent Venue Association – a National Independent Venue Association chapter. The committee has said it will examine ticket sale practices, fees across primary and secondary sellers, and the impact of bots and automated buying.

Blackburn’s office has previewed an aggressive posture toward bot-driven scalping and “bad actors,” describing a market where automated tools can scoop up large blocks of inventory and push fans into resale options at far higher prices. In an opinion column distributed ahead of the hearing, Blackburn argues that scalpers “add zero value,” cites past bot-related enforcement debates surrounding the BOTS Act, and points to ongoing efforts to strengthen enforcement through proposals like her MAIN EVENT Act.

In a letter sent to Ticketmaster executive Joe Berchtold in the wake of a recent Federal Trade Commission lawsuit accusing the company of ignoring possible “Bot” activity out of a desire to profit from ticket resale after it had already sold tickets once, Blackburn and Sen Ben Lujan (D-NM) ripped the entertainment giant for claiming it was fighting against such activity while doing the opposite.

“It is astounding that you would make such a claim while actively colluding with scalpers and bad actors to extort the American public,” Blackburn wrote, citing evidence in the FTC’s complaint that Ticketmaster “turned a blind eye” to brokers using bots to scoop up inventory.

But Breyault’s letter is, in part, a warning about oversimplifying the story—especially at a hearing where nearly everyone at the table has a preferred villain and a preferred solution that conveniently protects their own commercial interests.

“There are no white knights”

Breyault’s sharpest section may be the one that tries to strip away the moral framing that often dominates ticketing fights. Rather than casting one part of the ecosystem as the sole problem and another as the savior, he argues that the industry’s major stakeholders—primary platforms, venues, artists, and secondary market participants—are all pursuing business models that can conflict with consumer interests.

“Despite what the Committee is likely to hear from other witnesses at this hearing, there are no white knights in the live event ticketing industry,” Breyault wrote.

He reserves his most direct critique for Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster, arguing that the company’s ambition is to “lock down control over every meaningful choke point in the live event ecosystem.” Where it does not control a segment—most notably the secondary market—Breyault says the company has sought to either absorb it or marginalize it through restrictions, technical barriers, exclusivity arrangements, and state legislative proposals that can narrow consumer choice.

At the same time, he cautions against treating venues and artists as purely fan-first actors. Independent venues, he argues, can be constrained by the reality that Live Nation’s reach into touring and promotion can shape who plays where—and may also have their own financial incentives to restrict resale, because money spent on higher-priced secondary tickets can mean less discretionary spending once fans arrive at the venue. Artists, meanwhile, may have legitimate concerns about fan access and brand harm, but still want more control over data and long-term fan relationships, and can remain dependent on the same dominant infrastructure to mount large-scale tours.

Secondary market participants aren’t spared either. Breyault notes that the resale economy benefits from the arbitrage created when high-demand tickets are systematically underpriced relative to what the market will bear, producing opportunities for markups that frustrate fans—especially in opaque environments where listings can confuse buyers about what they are purchasing and from whom.

The result, he argues, is a debate that turns into “finger-pointing,” with the secondary market repeatedly cast as the easiest villain. The hearing, in his view, is a chance for lawmakers to move past that cycle and focus on reforms that apply consistently across the ecosystem.

The letter’s thesis: market power, not mystery

Breyault calls the 2010 Live Nation–Ticketmaster merger the “original sin,” describing it as a policy failure that combined the dominant ticketing platform with a dominant promoter and venue operator. That combination, he argues, created both the incentive and the ability to foreclose competition and degrade the consumer experience.

He also points to the government’s current posture as evidence that the consumer harms at issue are not speculative. The Department of Justice has brought an antitrust lawsuit challenging Live Nation Entertainment’s conduct across ticketing, venues, and promotion, and the Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate suit alleging deceptive practices in ticketing. In Breyault’s telling, those cases should be read as a signal that Congress has both the justification and the responsibility to move beyond hearings and into statutory reform.

“Congress should take that as confirmation that legislative intervention is not only appropriate, but necessary,” he wrote.

A bipartisan policy lane: the TICKET Act

While Breyault’s letter spends significant time dissecting incentives and market structure, it ultimately steers toward something more practical: a clear legislative path that doesn’t require Congress to pick winners or ban lawful resale.

His central recommendation is passage of the TICKET Act, which he describes as a targeted bill aimed at the most persistent consumer abuses in ticketing. The reforms he highlights are not framed as ideological—he emphasizes the bill’s broad support and momentum—but as baseline consumer protections that could reduce confusion and make comparison shopping possible in a market where fees, disclosures, and advertising practices can vary wildly.

Originally supported by businesses and consumer advocates alike on both sides of the “primary” vs. “secondary” ticketing divide, the TICKET Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the previous congress, and continues to enjoy broad bipartisan support as a comprimise bill that improves consumer protections in ticketing without harming competition in a market that already has very little of it.

The TICKET Act’s most visible component is “all-in pricing,” requiring ticket sellers to show the full price—including mandatory fees—up front. Breyault argues that, specifically for ticketing, this kind of disclosure rule makes enforcement simpler and reduces loopholes that market participants can exploit. He also points to provisions that would curb speculative ticketing—selling tickets not actually possessed—along with limits on deceptive resale advertising that can mislead fans into thinking they’re buying “official” tickets when they are not. The bill also includes stronger expectations around refunds and disclosure when events are canceled, postponed, or materially changed.

For a hearing framed around fees and consumer frustration, Breyault’s approach is notable because it treats transparency as a foundation rather than a talking point—and because it tries to apply the rules consistently across primary and secondary channels, rather than treating one side as legitimate and the other as inherently suspect.

Bots still matter—but enforcement can’t be performative

Even as Breyault pushes back on scapegoating, he doesn’t dismiss bots as a real issue. Instead, he argues that bot enforcement is the mechanism that makes other consumer protections meaningful. If fans are shut out before they ever see a legitimate listing, transparency rules can’t deliver real-world benefits.

NCL, he writes, supports Blackburn’s MAIN EVENT Act as an update to the BOTS Act—closing loopholes, increasing penalties, and strengthening enforcement authority. In one of the letter’s most quoted lines, he argues that “rules without enforcement are suggestions,” and says Congress should treat bots as the gatekeeping problem they are: consumers can’t benefit from price clarity if they can’t access inventory at face value in the first place.

What today’s hearing could reveal

With multiple political narratives competing for airtime—bots vs. fees, scalpers vs. market structure, resale restrictions vs. transparency—today’s hearing could hinge less on what senators say they want and more on what they choose to interrogate.

Breyault’s letter effectively challenges lawmakers to do something rare in ticketing hearings: talk openly about incentives. If a witness argues the problem is scalpers, what is that witness’s preferred policy fix—and how does it affect competition and consumer choice? If a witness argues resale should be restricted or capped, what happens to transparency and availability when primary sellers can still surge prices, withhold inventory, or route tickets into premium channels? If a witness argues for all-in pricing, will they support it consistently across primary and resale, or only where it benefits their business model?

The letter also gives senators a ready-made pivot away from theatrics. Instead of relitigating a two-decade blame game, Breyault urges Congress to act on reforms that already have bipartisan traction and direct consumer impact—starting with the TICKET Act’s transparency rules and extending to tougher bot enforcement so that those rules matter in practice.

“Consumers do not need another round of blame-shifting,” Breyault concludes. “They need Congress to act.”

TicketNews will continue to track developments from today’s hearing, including prepared testimony, opening statements, and any additional submissions entered into the record.

National Consumers League (NCL) Letter Text: