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
© 2024 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 AllSoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
With SDNY Stay Lifted, Sex Trafficking Civil Suit Against Vince McMahon, WWE Gets Green Light
3 minute readBig Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 2Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 3Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 4Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 5Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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