59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–733 

BETTER ON-LINE TICKET SALES ACT OF 2016 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5104] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 5104) to prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or 

practice in commerce, the sale or use of certain software to circumvent 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 and recommends that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 7 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 7 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 7 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 7 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 7 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 8 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 8 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 8 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 8 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 8 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 8 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

The amendment is as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better On-line Ticket Sales Act of 2016’’ or the 

‘‘BOTS Act’’. 

SEC. 2. UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO USE OF TICKET ACCESS 

CIRCUMVENTION SOFTWARE. 

(a) SALE OF SOFTWARE.—It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer to sell, 

in commerce, any computer software, or part thereof, that— 

(1) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that limits purchases made via a computerized event 

ticketing system; 

(2) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that limits purchases made via a computerized event ticketing system; or 

(3) is marketed by that person for use in circumventing a technological measure that limits purchases made via a computerized event ticketing system. 

(b) USE OF SOFTWARE.—It shall be unlawful for any person to use any computer 

software, or part thereof, described in subsection (a) of this section, to purchase an 

event ticket via a computerized event ticketing system in violation of the system operator’s posted limits on the sequence or number of transactions, frequency of transactions, or quantity of tickets purchased by a single user of the system, or on the 

geographic location of any transactions. 

(c) RESALE OF TICKETS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of reselling in commerce, event tickets acquired in violation of subsection (b) of 

this section if the person either— 

(1) participated directly in or had the ability to control the conduct in violation of subsection (b); or 

(2) knew or should have known that the event tickets were acquired in violation of subsection (b). 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘computerized event ticketing system’’ means a system of selling 

event tickets, in commerce, via an online interactive computer system that effectively limits the sequence or number of ticket purchase transactions, frequency 

of ticket purchase transactions, quantity of tickets purchased, or geographic location of any ticket purchase transactions; 

(2) the term ‘‘event ticket’’ means a ticket entitling one or more individuals 

to attend, in person, one or more events to occur on specific dates, times, and 

geographic locations; and 

(3) to ‘‘circumvent a technological measure’’ means to avoid, bypass, remove, 

deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the computerized event ticketing system operator. 

(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Notwithstanding the prohibitions set forth in subsections (a) and (b), it shall not be unlawful under this section to create or use any 

computer software, or part thereof, to— 

(1) investigate or further the enforcement or defense of any alleged violation 

of this section; or 

(2) engage in research necessary to identify and analyze flaws and 

vulnerabilities of a computerized event ticketing system, 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 products. 

(f) ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.—A violation of subsection 

(a), (b), or (c) shall be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation 

of a regulation issued under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). 

(g) ENFORCEMENT BY STATES.— 

(1) AUTHORIZATION.—Subject to paragraph (2), in any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents 

of the State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by a violation of 

subsection (a), (b), or (c), the attorney general of the State may, as parens 

patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate relief. 

(2) RIGHTS OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.— 

(A) NOTICE TO FTC.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (iii), the attorney general of a State shall notify the Federal Trade Commission in writing 

that the attorney general intends to bring a civil action under paragraph (1) before initiating the civil action against a person for a violation of subsection (a), (b), or (c). 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

(ii) CONTENTS.—The notification required by clause (i) with respect to 

a civil action shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate 

the civil action. 

(iii) EXCEPTION.—If it is not feasible for the attorney general of a 

State to provide the notification required by clause (i) before initiating 

a civil action under paragraph (1), the attorney general shall notify the 

Commission immediately upon instituting the civil action. 

(B) INTERVENTION BY THE FTC.—The Federal Trade Commission may— 

(i) intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney general of a 

State under paragraph (1); and 

(ii) upon intervening, be heard on all matters arising in the civil action, and file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil action. 

(3) PENDING ACTION BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.—If the Federal 

Trade Commission institutes a civil action or an administrative action with respect to a violation of subsection (a), (b), or (c), the attorney general of a State 

may not, during the pendency of such action, bring a civil action under paragraph (1) against any defendant named in the complaint of the Commission for 

the violation with respect to which the Commission instituted such action. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of the Better On-line Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 

2016 (H.R. 5104) is to prevent any person from selling or using 

software that circumvents the safeguards event ticket sellers put in 

place to ensure equitable access to tickets. 

H.R. 5104 would prohibit the sale or use of any computer software that (1) is primarily designed to circumvent measures to limit 

event ticket purchases, (2) has only limited commercial purposes 

aside from such circumvention, or (3) is marketed for use in such 

circumvention. The legislation also prohibits the purchase of any 

event ticket in violation of the ticket seller’s posted ticket sale limits. Finally, H.R. 5104 prohibits the resale of tickets purchased initially in violation of H.R. 5104, where the reseller knew or should 

have known that the tickets were acquired in violation of H.R. 

5104 or where the reseller participated directly in or had the ability to control such acquisition. 

H.R. 5104 contains a rule of construction clarifying that the prohibitions in the legislation do not render investigations of a violation of H.R. 5104 or certain research activities unlawful. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary enforcer of 

H.R. 5104. Subject to certain restraints outlined in the legislation, 

a State attorney general may also enforce the provisions of H.R. 

5104 if the State attorney general has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of the State has been threatened or adversely affected by a violation of H.R. 5104. State attorneys general 

would be required to notify the FTC in writing when they bring 

civil actions under the statute, unless it is infeasible to do so, and 

are precluded from State enforcement actions during the pendency 

of an FTC enforcement action involving the same violation and a 

common defendant. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The market for live event tickets has encountered challenges 

from ticket brokers who use software to circumvent the safeguards 

primary ticket sellers use to limit ticket purchases. This software 

is commonly referred to as ‘‘ticket bots.’’ Ticket bots perform different functions, but generally operate by (1) automatically and 

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

automatically reserving and displaying available tickets for the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

1 Eric T. Schneidermann, New York State Attorney Gen., Obstructed View: What’s Blocking 

New Yorkers From Getting Tickets 15–16 (Jan. 2016), available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/ 

TicketlSaleslReport.pdf [New York Study]. 2Letter from William M. Rubenstein, Commissioner of Consumer Protection, State of Connecticut, to Hon. Paul Doyle, State Senator, Co-Chair, General Law Committee, State of Connecticut, et al. 4 (Feb. 22, 2012), available 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.’’) [Connecticut Report]. 3Legislative Hearing on 17 FTC Bills Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Manufacturing, and 

Trade of the H. Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 114th Cong. 2 (2016) (statement of Gil Genn, 

Maryland Sports & Entertainment Industry Coalition) (‘‘. . . for most live entertainment events 

there is a restriction on the number of seats one purchaser can buy—usually between 4 and 

8 tickets.’’) [Genn Testimony]. 4Ticketmaster, Terms of Use, http://www.ticketmaster.com/h/terms.html (last visited Aug. 

17, 2016). 5See, e.g., Lin-Manuel Miranda, ‘‘Stop the Bots From Killing Broadway,’’ N.Y. Times (June 

7, 2016), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/opinion/stop-the-bots-from-killingbroadway.html; Patrick Doyle, ‘‘Eric Church on Scalpers, Bro-Country and Blake Shelton Scandal,’’ Rolling Stone (June 11, 2014), available at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ericchurch-on-scalpers-bro-country-andblake-shelton-scandal-20140611. 6Genn Testimony, at 2 (‘‘It is unfair to the younger fans who have discovered these legends 

to have to pay exorbitant prices to secondary ticket sellers when they are also concerned about 

their first job salary, saving for college or even paying-off student loans, and real-life expenses.’’). 7 Ben Sisario, ‘‘Concert Industry Struggles With ‘Bots’ That Siphon Off Tickets,’’ N.Y. Times 

(May 26, 2013), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/business/media/bots-that-siphon-off-tickets-frustrate-concert-promoters.html. 8 New York Study at 4. 

9 Id. 

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

Current State (Council of State Gov’ts), Jul.–Aug. 2016 available at http://www.csg.org/pubs/ 

capitolideas/enews/cs53l1.aspx (‘‘about a dozen states have laws that ban ticket bots. . . .’’). 

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 Completely Automated Public Turing 

(CAPTCHA) tests.1

In many cases, primary ticket sellers limit purchases by buyers. 

For example, ticket sellers often make tickets available to the general public on a set date and time 2 and may limit the number of 

tickets to four or six per purchasing party.3 These measures are to 

ensure that ticket buyers have an equitable chance of acquiring 

tickets to the live event, which are necessarily finite in number. 

Ticket sellers also generally prohibit the use of automated software 

to purchase bulk tickets, which would defeat the technical safeguards to ticket purchase limitations. 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

Ticket brokers’ use of ticket bots has frustrated the intentions of 

performers 5 and other ticket sellers 6 to make tickets available equitably and at reasonable prices. Primary ticket sellers have estimated that 60 percent of the most desirable tickets for some shows 

are obtained by ticket bots.7 Ticket bots have also enabled brokers 

to purchase and then sell large swaths of event tickets on the secondary market at exorbitant prices. One study finds that, on average, brokers 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 against primary ticket sellers’ 

terms and technical controls, however, has enabled them to mark 

up the price by over 1,000 percent.9

Several States have enacted laws to combat ticket bots.10 In addition, New York and Connecticut have each conducted reports of 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

11See New York Study; Connecticut Report. 

the market for event tickets in those States.11 These reports focus 

more broadly on the ticket market as a whole, but include some 

data on ticket bots. H.R. 5104 would encourage the FTC to put its 

resources toward combating the problem of ticket bots and provide 

an enforcement tool for States by authorizing State attorneys general to enforce the Federal statute. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held 

a hearing on H.R. 5104, along with several other bills, on May 24, 

2016. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 

• Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman, Federal Trade Commission; 

• Joshua D. Wright, University Professor, Antonin Scalia 

Law School at George Mason University; 

• Geoffrey Manne, Founder and Executive Director, International Center for Law and Economics; 

• Daniel Castro, Vice President, Information Technology and 

Innovation Foundation; 

• Abigail Slater, General Counsel, Internet Association; 

• Michael Best, Senior Policy Advocate, Consumer Federation of America; 

• David Vladeck, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law; 

• Richard Hendrickson, President and CEO, Lifetime Products; 

• Greg O’Shanick, President and Medical Director, Center 

for Neurorehabilitation Services; 

• Stephen Shur, President, Travel Technology Association; 

• Robert Arrington, President, National Funeral Directors 

Association; 

• John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud, National Consumers League; 

• Gil Genn, Maryland Sports and Entertainment Industry 

Coalition; and 

• Jamie Pena, Vice President, Revenue Strategy and Global 

Distribution, Omni Hotels and Resorts. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 8 and 9, 2016, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 5104, as amended, to the full Committee by a voice vote. On 

July 12, 13, and 14, 2016, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5104 reported 

to the House by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. No other recorded 

votes were requested. The following reflects the record votes taken 

during the Committee consideration: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here HR733.001
7 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of H.R. 5104 is to prevent any person from selling or 

using software that circumvents the safeguards event ticket sellers 

put in place to ensure equitable access to tickets. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 5104 

would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 

authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 5104 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 9, 2016. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5104, the Better On-line 

Ticket Sales Act of 2016. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen Rabent. 

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY, (For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5104—Better On-line Ticket Sales Act of 2016 

H.R. 5104 would prohibit the sale or use of software that circumvents technology used by ticket sellers to prevent mass ticket 

purchases online. 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 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
8 

monitoring and enforcing the new prohibitions established by H.R. 

5104 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 H.R. 5104 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 H.R. 5104 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 5104 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. 

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

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 5104 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 5104 specifically directs to be completed no rulemakings within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. 551. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016’’ or the ‘‘BOTS Act.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
9 

Section 2. Unfair and deceptive acts and practices relating to use 

of ticket access circumvention software 

This section makes it unlawful for any person to sell or offer to 

sell software that (1) is primarily designed or produced to circumvent technological measures limiting purchases made via computerized event ticketing system; (2) has only limited commercially 

significant purpose or use other than for such circumvention; or (3) 

is marketed by a person as software intended for such circumvention. The section further makes it unlawful to use such software in 

violation of a ticket seller’s posted ticket purchasing rules regarding the sequence, number, or frequency of transactions, quantity of 

tickets purchased by a single user, or on the geographic location of 

transactions. The section also renders it unlawful for any person to 

sell any ticket that has been obtained by that person, or another, 

using circumvention software, if the secondary seller either participated directly or had the ability to control the unlawful conduct or 

knew or should have known that the tickets were obtained in violation of the section. 

This section further provides a rule of construction clarifying 

that it is not unlawful to use circumvention software to investigate 

or further the enforcement or defense of any alleged violation of 

this section; or engage in research necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities. This section sets forth that a violation of this Act will be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act and authorizes State 

attorneys general to enforce its provisions. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING