Recently, there has been mounting tension between sports fans attempting to resell game tickets for their favorite teams and the very teams they support. Within the past few weeks for example, both the New York Yankees and the Minnesota Timberwolves have instituted policies requiring fans to present “verified electronic tickets” if using a ticket from a mobile device. Although “ticket scalping” has seemingly been around since the beginning of time, many of these limitations come in the wake of the rising popularity of resale platforms such as StubHub.
Such restrictive policies have also come in the form of allowing tickets to be sold exclusively through specific mediums such as Ticketmaster, which sometimes imposes price floors below which tickets cannot be sold; limiting the time frame during which paper tickets may be printed; and in some cases, imposing prohibitions on non-electronic tickets entirely.
Not surprisingly, such restrictions have given rise to a number of lawsuits, many claiming the restrictions improperly stifle competition. In fact, as of January 2016, there was an ongoing investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman into whether NFL ticket resale price floors violate anti-trust laws.
The organizations responsible for the limitations, however, claim their purpose is to benefit the fans. On this issue, Timberwolves President Chris Wright commented “[w]e are committed to continuing to give our fans the best possible experience, including the convenience and security offered by Flash Seats.” Flash seats is a Timberwolves-sanctioned ticket resale platform that, while virtually ensuring ticket authenticity, prevents tickets from being sold below 75 percent of their face value, and collects fees from every sale — 15 percent of which goes to the team itself.
Thusfar however, lawsuits raising issue with such policies have been largely unsuccessful as courts have been reluctant to extend consumers’ resale rights that far. According to commercial litigator Joseph C. Sullivan, tickets are generally viewed by courts as licenses to particular seats: “[i]t is, basically, you have a right that they can revoke at any time to sit in this seat for this game, and that is it … that is all the consumer is really allowed to do.”
While teams might currently have the law on their side, it remains to be seen what the long-term impact such restrictions will have on relationships with their fans, the alienation of which could be far more costly than losing a lawsuit.