Sweeping Changes Proposed to New York Ticketing Regime
On May 12, 2021, after conducting a year-long investigation into event ticketing, New York State Senator James Skoufis introduced a bill with widespread changes to New York's ticketing landscape. This article discusses the key proposals of the bill, which reached the New York Senate floor on May 20, 2021.
June 03, 2021 at 11:45 AM
8 minute read
New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law (ACAL) has long been one of the most complex regulatory regimes for the sale of tickets to places of entertainment. On May 12, 2021, after conducting a year-long investigation into event ticketing, New York State Senator James Skoufis introduced a bill with widespread changes to New York's ticketing landscape. This article discusses the key proposals of the bill, which reached the New York Senate floor on May 20, 2021. As discussed below, the bill proposes a prohibition on exclusive ticket sale relationships for primary ticket sales, the elimination of dynamic pricing, and more stringent refund requirements for cancelled and postponed events. With several key provisions of ACAL set to sunset on June 30, 2021, the New York State Assembly recently passed a bill that would extend the expiration date to June 30, 2023. With the Skoufis bill and the Assembly's extension both before the state Senate, it seems like an appropriate time to take a closer look at what may be in store for ACAL's future.
ACAL Background
Since New York expanded the ticket resale business in 2007 by removing the cap on resale prices (see 2007 N.Y. Laws 2738), the legislature has continued to revise ACAL in response to concerns about ticket price and availability. In 2010, the legislature amended ACAL to regulate service fees and paperless tickets, as well as ban the use of ticket purchasing software (sometimes called "bots"). See 2010 N.Y. Laws 781, 785; see also Anthony J. Dreyer, "Hold All Tickets: New York Adopts (Yet Another) Ticket Resale Law," N.Y.L.J. (July 28, 2010). In 2016, the New York Attorney General surveyed the state ticket landscape and issued recommendations to further improve ACAL. See Eric T. Schneiderman, N.Y. State Attorney General, "Obstructed View: What's Blocking New Yorkers From Getting Tickets" (2016). In 2018, the state legislature amended ACAL to add clearer disclosures of ticket prices, exceptions to paperless ticket restrictions, additional notice requirements for ticket resellers, and increased penalties for using bots to obtain tickets for resale. See 2018 N.Y. Laws 110; see also Anthony J. Dreyer and Andrew Green, "Further Ticket Sale (and Resale) Reforms Come to New York State," N.Y.L.J., Sept. 21, 2018.
A Ban on Exclusive Ticket Sale Relationships
Senator Skoufis's bill would significantly alter the primary and secondary ticket sales regimes. Perhaps most notably, the bill seeks to place additional restrictions on operators of entertainment venues by amending General Obligations Law §5-338. The bill would prevent any entertainment venue from entering into a contract with a primary ticket vendor to serve as the venue's sole and exclusive ticket vendor. Although the 2016 NYAG report raised concerns about service fees, it did not issue any recommendations regarding the exclusive relationship between venue operators and ticket vendors. It is therefore notable that Senator Skoufis's bill seeks to prohibit such exclusive agreements. If the bill remains in its current form, it is unclear how the amendment would work in practice. Are operators required to have multiple primary sales partners for a single event (which would be logistically and practically untenable)? Could an operator comply with the new law by having a different partner for only a few events? Would existing agreements be "grandfathered"?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWalt Disney, IBM Denied High Court Review of Old NY Franchise Tax Law
3 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Just Ahead of Oral Argument, Fubo Settles Antitrust Case with Disney, Fox, Warner Bros.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 2'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 3Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 4Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
- 5Davis Wright Tremaine Turns to Gen AI To Teach Its Associates Legal Writing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250