U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–391 

BETTER ONLINE TICKET SALES ACT OF 

2016 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 3183 

DECEMBER 5, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas ED MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–391 

BETTER ONLINE TICKET SALES ACT OF 2016 

DECEMBER 5, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. THUNE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3183] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 3183) to prohibit the circumvention 

of control measures used by Internet ticket sellers to ensure equitable consumer access to tickets for any given event, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 3183, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 

2016 (BOTS Act of 2016), is to prohibit the circumvention of control 

measures used by Internet ticket sellers to ensure equitable consumer access to tickets for any given event. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The market for live event tickets has encountered challenges 

from scalpers who use software to circumvent the safeguards primary ticket sellers use to limit ticket purchases. This software, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bots’’ or ‘‘bot’’ software, automates ticketbuying on online platforms by: (1) automatically and continuously 

checking ticket seller websites for ticket releases; (2) automatically 

reserving and displaying available tickets for the human operator; 

(3) automatically buying tickets using as many names, addresses, 

and credit card numbers as necessary to appear to be individual 

ticket buyers; and (4) defeating anti-ticket bot security measures 

such as so-called CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing 

test to tell Computers and Humans Apart) to determine whether 

or not a ticket purchaser is human (for example, by asking the purVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:03 Dec 07, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR391.XXX SR391

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Eric T. Schneiderman, N.Y. State Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Obstructed View: 

What’s Blocking New Yorkers from Getting Tickets, pp. 15-16, January 2016, at http:// 

www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/TicketlSaleslReport.pdf [hereinafter N.Y. OAG Report]. 2Letter from William M. Rubenstein, Commissioner of Consumer Protection, State of Connecticut, to Hon. Paul Doyle, State Sen., Co-Chair, General Law Comm., State of Connecticut, 

p. 4, February 22, 2012, at http://www.ct.gov/dcp/lib/dcp/pdf/publications/finallticketlletter.pdf 

(‘‘The date on which tickets will be available to all members of the public is known as the ‘public 

on-sale date.’’’) [hereinafter Conn. Report]. 3Testimony of Gil Genn, Managing partner of the Maryland Sports & Entertainment and Industry Coalition, in U.S. Congress, U.S. Committee on Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, Legislative Hearing on 17 FTC Bills, hearings, 114th 

Congress, May 24, 2016, (‘‘[F]or most live entertainment events there is a restriction on the 

number of seats one purchaser can buy – usually between 4 and 8 tickets.’’) [hereinafter Genn 

Testimony]. 4Ticketmaster, Terms of Use, last visited Oct. 19, 2016, at http://www.ticketmaster.com/h/ 

terms.html. 5Lin-Manuel Miranda, ‘‘Stop the Bots From Killing Broadway,’’ New York Times, June 7, 

2016, at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/opinion/stop-the-bots-from-killing-broadway.html; 

Patrick Doyle, ‘‘Eric Church on Scalpers, Bro-Country and Blake Shelton Scandal,’’ Rolling 

Stone, June 11, 2014, at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/eric-church-on-scalpers-brocountry-andblake-shelton-scandal-20140611. 6Genn Testimony, at p.2. 

7 Ben Sisario, ‘‘Concert Industry Struggles With ‘Bots’ That Siphon Off Tickets’’, New York 

Times, May 26, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/business/media/bots-that-siphon-offtickets-frustrate-concert-promoters.html. 8 N.Y. OAG report, p. 4. 

9 Ibid. 

10Shawntaye Hopkins, Blame it on the Bots: States Act to Ban Ticket-Buying Software, The 

Current State (Council of State Gov’ts) , July-August 2016, at http://www.csg.org/pubs/ 

capitolideas/enews/cs53l1.aspx (‘‘about a dozen states have laws that ban ticket bots’’). 11See N.Y. OAG Report; Connecticut Report. 12 N.Y. OAG Report, p 4. 

chaser to type correctly a series of letters that appear as a twisted 

or stretched image on the ticketing website).1

In many cases, primary ticket sellers limit purchases. For example, ticket sellers often make tickets available to the general public 

on a set date and time2 and may limit the number of tickets to four 

or six per purchasing party.3 These measures are aimed at ensuring that ticket buyers have a fair chance of obtaining tickets to the 

live event, which are necessarily limited in number. Ticket sellers 

also generally prohibit the use of automated software to defeat the 

technical safeguards and subvert ticket purchase limits. For example, Ticketmaster prohibits the ‘‘[u]se of any automated software or 

computer system to search for, reserve, buy or otherwise obtain 

tickets . . . available on the Site.’’4

The use of ticket bots has frustrated the intentions of performers5 and other ticket sellers6 to make tickets available equitably and at reasonable prices. Primary ticket sellers have estimated that ticket bots obtain 60 percent of the most desirable tickets for some shows.7 Ticket bots also have enabled scalpers to purchase and subsequently sell large swaths of event tickets on the 

secondary market at exorbitant prices. One study finds that, on average, scalpers mark up the price of tickets on the secondary market by 49 percent of the primary ticket seller’s price.8 The ability 

to buy massive amounts of tickets in violation of primary ticket 

sellers’ terms and technical controls, however, has enabled scalpers 

in some instances to mark up the price by over 1,000 percent.9

Several States have enacted laws to combat ticket bots.10 Two of 

these States, New York and Connecticut, also have issued reports 

on the market for event tickets in those respective States.11 Although these reports focus more broadly on the ticket market as a 

whole, they include some data on ticket bots.12 For example, the 

New York Attorney General found that at least tens of thousands 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

of tickets per year are being acquired using bots. At present, there 

have been no reports of enforcement of any of the State laws. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On July 13, 2016, Senator Moran (for himself, Senator 

Blumenthal, Senator Fischer, and Senator Schumer) introduced 

S. 3183, which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. Additional cosponsors include Senators Nelson, Klobuchar, Cantwell, Warner, and Stabenow. 

On September 13, 2016, the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data Security Subcommittee held a hearing on 

S. 3183. 

On September 21, 2016, the Committee held an Executive Session at which S. 3183 was considered. The bill was approved 

unanimously by voice vote and was ordered to be reported with an 

amendment (in the nature of a substitute). 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 3183—Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 

S. 3183 would prohibit people from taking certain actions to circumvent technology used by ticket sellers to enforce online event 

ticket purchase rules and limits. The bill also would prohibit the 

resale of tickets obtained in that manner. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would enforce the proposed prohibition. 

Based on information from the FTC about its current enforcement capabilities, CBO estimates that increased costs related to 

monitoring and enforcing the new prohibitions established by S. 

3183 would total less than $500,000 per year; such spending would 

be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

In addition, CBO estimates that enacting S. 3183 would increase 

federal revenues from civil penalties imposed to enforce the new 

prohibition; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, 

CBO estimates that those collections would be insignificant because of the small number of cases that the agency would probably 

pursue. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 3183 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

S. 3183 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

On September 9, 2016, CB0 transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

5104, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 

13, 2016. The two pieces of legislation are similar and CBO’s estimates of the budgetary effects are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

REGULATORY IMPACT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

The bill would establish a new prohibition on conduct relating to 

circumvention of ticket access control measures, with certain exceptions including investigation and research. This prohibition would 

be treated as a trade rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or 

practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et 

seq.; FTC Act). Therefore, this legislation would subject those individuals or businesses engaged in such conduct to new regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 3183 is expected to have an overall positive impact on the Nation’s economy. While this legislation aims to prohibit the use of 

bots, and therefore is intended to have a negative impact on the 

business model of ticket resellers who employ this method to purchase improperly available tickets in large numbers, S. 3183 nevertheless would have a positive impact on the secondary ticket sellers 

to the extent that it would advance a fair and competitive ticket 

market. S. 3183 would ensure a large percentage of available tickets remain available to fans at fair and reasonable prices, which in 

turn would encourage additional spending on merchandise, concessions, and additional events. 

PRIVACY

S. 3183 would not have a negative impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

S. 3183 would increase the paperwork burden of States, requiring the attorney general of a State to notify the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) in writing that the attorney general intends to 

bring a civil action under this legislation before initiating the civil 

action (if feasible, or otherwise immediately upon instituting the 

civil action), including a copy of the complaint filed to initiate the 

civil action. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. 

This section would provide that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016’’ or the ‘‘BOTS Act of 2016.’’ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

Section 2. Unfair and deceptive acts and practices relating to circumvention of ticket access control measures. 

This section would prohibit any individual from circumventing a 

security measure, access control system, or other technological control or measure on an Internet website of a ticket issuer that is 

used by the ticket issuer to enforce posted event ticket purchasing 

limits or to maintain the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules. It also would prohibit the sale or offer for sale 

of any event ticket in interstate commerce obtained in violation of 

these measures if the person selling or offering to sell the tickets 

either participated directly in or had the ability to control the conduct in violation of these measures, or knew or should have known 

that the event tickets were acquired in violation of these measures. 

This section would exempt the creation or use of any computer 

software or system to: investigate, or further the enforcement or 

defense of, any alleged violation of this section or other statute or 

regulation; or engage in research necessary to identify and analyze 

flaws and vulnerabilities of measures, systems, or controls if these 

research activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge 

in the field of computer system security or to assist in the development of computer security product. 

This section would require the FTC to enforce this section as an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act, while holding any individual in violation of this section subject to the penalties and entitling them to the privileges and immunities of that 

law. 

This section would allow the attorney general of a State to bring 

civil action on behalf of the State’s residents, as parens patriae, if 

the attorney general believes that an interest of the State’s residents has been or is threatened by any person in violation of this 

section. It would provide a State’s attorney general the authority 

to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of 

the State’s residents. 

This section also would require a State’s attorney general to notify the FTC of any civil action pertaining to this section within 10 

days of the action’s initiation with some feasibility exceptions provided. It would allow the FTC to intervene in any civil action 

brought by a State’s attorney general under this section. 

This section would reaffirm that nothing in the section may be 

construed to prevent a State’s attorney general from exercising his 

or her investigatory powers by the laws of the State. This section 

would prevent a State’s attorney general, in an effort to preempt 

action by the FTC, from bringing a civil action under this section 

if the FTC has already instituted a civil action or an administrative 

action against the same defendant. 

It would authorize that any action under this section may be 

brought in the applicable district court of the United States or another court of competent jurisdiction. This section also would authorize any other consumer protection officer authorized by a State 

to bring a civil action within this section subject to the same requirements and limitations that apply to a State’s attorney general. 

This section contains a savings provision that would provide that 

nothing in the section be construed to limit, impair, or supersede 

the operation of the FTC Act or any other provision of Federal law. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Section 3. Definitions. 

Section 3 of the bill would define terms used in the bill, including 

‘‘covered events,’’ ‘‘tickets,’’ and ‘‘ticket issuers.’’ 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS