ISE04/18-19

Subject: home affairs, commerce and industry, ticket scalping, secondary ticketing, nominative ticket


  • Ticket scalping is a notorious form of secondary ticket market. It refers to activities where ticket scalpers purchase tickets in the primary market with a deliberate intention of making a profit through resale. In Hong Kong, concert and sports fans often complain about the difficulty to buy popular event tickets in open sale and the exorbitant prices of tickets put on sale on secondary ticket websites shortly after the events are sold-out. The dissatisfaction has sparked concerns over consumers' fair access to event tickets and calls for government intervention.1Legend symbol denoting A performance industry body comprising some entertainment companies called for more stringent anti-ticket scalping regulation in its press conference held in May 2018.
  • In recent years, online ticket sale has become a norm and changed the scalping practice. Scalpers nowadays can resell tickets through secondary ticket or auction websites and social media platforms. Improved technology has also enabled scalpers to snatch tickets in large quantity from the primary ticket market through automated software. While ticket resale ban is often part of ticket conditions imposed by event organizers, its deterrent effect (i.e. through cancellation of tickets resold) is limited as it relies on the organizer's vigorous monitoring and enforcement at their own cost.
  • At the Panel on Home Affairs meeting on 26 November 2018, Members urged the Government to step up efforts to combat ticket scalping.2Legend symbol denoting Members have raised concerns over ticket scalping through questions raised at the Council meetings in 2004, 2007, 2014 and 2018. See Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council (2018a) and (2018b). In this regard, the Home Affairs Bureau has indicated that it would review relevant regulations and table a proposal in the third quarter of 2019. It would also consider other measures including increasing ticket supply available to the public and using nominative tickets with names printed. This piece of Essentials revisits ticket scalping regulations of Hong Kong, and the experiences of Australia, particularly the state of Queensland, which was one of the earliest states to introduce anti-scalping regulation.

Ticket scalping regulations in Hong Kong

Ticket scalping regulations in Australia

Declared major facilities or events

Resale price limit

Penalty and enforcement

  • Under the Major Facilities Act 2001, both ticket buyers and sellers would be liable to fines for engaging in ticket scalping. Buyers may face a fine of up to A$653 (HK$3,794), compared to a fine of up to A$2,611 (HK$15,164) for a reseller under the same law. However, under the Major Events Act 2014, only the sellers would be fined for the same penalty level.19Legend symbol denoting In some other states, the penalty charged to individuals and body corporates is different. For example, in New South Wales and Victoria, the maximum penalty charged to a violating corporation is five times more than the level charged to a violating individual. To enhance the deterrent, the details of the offence and fines would be printed on tickets. The Queensland police are responsible for enforcing the legislation, with the power to issue infringement notice (similar to a fixed penalty ticket in Hong Kong) to sellers and buyers on spots for the scalping offence.
  • While the above laws and measures were considered necessary by Queensland to combat ticket scalping, their effectiveness and ease of enforcement were questioned. For instance, Live Performance Australia, which represents the live performance industry, had challenged if legislation was the right approach. In its submission to an inquiry of the Parliament of Australia in 2014, it raised that tickets for events held at some declared facilities in Queensland could still be found offered for sale at above the 10% price limit in online platforms. It was also concerned if the state legislation could be effectively enforced in other states or in foreign jurisdictions when the ticket resellers are based overseas and operate via the internet. That said, between 2007 and 2012, the Queensland authorities reported that there were a total of 53 prosecutions (ranging from 1 to 19 cases annually) taken by the Queensland police, for breaches of the anti-scalping provision of the Major Sports Facilities Act 2001 including internet scalping.20Legend symbol denoting See Queensland Parliament (2014a) and (2014b). However, there was no mention of whether the online scalping activities were conducted locally or overseas. A total of 19 charges were laid in the court between 2007 and 2014. There were however no prosecution statistics in relation to the enforcement of the Major Events Act 2014.

Concluding remarks

  • In light of growing public concerns over ticket scalping in Hong Kong, the Government has proposed various possible measures to address the issue. In Australia, different states have introduced legislation to curb profiteering activities on ticket resale. In Queensland, the scalping regulation is applied to major facilities or major events designated by the government, with a price limit capped at 10% above original sale price to allow for recovery of associated administrative fees commonly charged. Both buyers and sellers are liable to a fine for engaging in ticket scalping if the event is held at major facilities. The regulation however provides flexibility where non-profit organizations can make legitimate resale above the price cap for fundraising. These may shed some lights on the way forward of Hong Kong to deal with ticket scalping.


Prepared by CHEUNG Chi-fai
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
30 January 2019


Endnotes:

1.A performance industry body comprising some entertainment companies called for more stringent anti-ticket scalping regulation in its press conference held in May 2018.

2.Members have raised concerns over ticket scalping through questions raised at the Council meetings in 2004, 2007, 2014 and 2018. See Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council (2018a) and (2018b).

3.The other laws/regulations are mainly concerned with unauthorized selling or soliciting in specified venues or in public places. These include the Civic Centres Regulation (Cap. 132F) and the Public Health and Municipal Ordinance (Cap. 132), which regulate the sale of any item in civic centres, and the Summary Offence Ordinance (Cap. 228), which empowers the Police to arrest people causing nuisance by soliciting sale of any item in public places.

4.The law was introduced to curb street violence related to ticket reselling. See Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council (1941).

5.It was reported in 2004 that Police arrested 10 people in connection with "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The arrested allegedly colluded to push up the ticket resale price in online bidding. However, Police does not keep statistics on the such arrests and prosecutions. See Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council (2018a).

6.LCSD managed facilities all along had not been required to be licenced under PPEO. That arrangement was formalized in the Places of Public Entertainment (Exemption) Order in 2002, when the Government sought to regulate the then popular rave parties in unlicensed premises through amendment to Schedule 1 of PPEO.

7.Event organizer has to limit internal and priority sale to no more than 80% (49% prior to 2001) of all available tickets for event held in Hong Kong Coliseum and Queen Elizabeth Stadium, and 49% for events held in other LCSD venues. In the past, about half of tickets printed under the public-funded ticketing system were for internal sale or gift coupon. Meanwhile, Urbtix, the official ticketing system hired by LCSD, allows only up to 40 tickets purchased each time regardless of the means of purchase.

8.The arrangement required ticket holders to arrive at the event venue with their identity proof well before the concert began. Each ticket holder was also charged an extra HK$35 as administration fee per ticket for ticketing balloting. Apart from the concert event held at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, the arrangement of nominative tickets had also been adopted for some concerts held in Asia-Expo. Ticket holders were reportedly randomly checked while entering the concert venue.

9.Other possible legislative proposals being considered by the Government include amending the Public Health and Municipal Ordinance (Cap. 132) that allows the relevant authority to make regulations on matters relating to civic centres, and amending the Summary Offence Ordinance (Cap. 228) to strengthen the provisions relating to touting in public places.

10.See Acil Allen Consulting (2014).

11.In 2017, the Australia Consumer and Competition Commission sued an online ticket resale website for providing false and misleading information to consumers.

12.In 2010, the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council published a report on ticket reselling, which did not recommend a national regulatory framework as it believed that the problem was not as serious as reported. The report was followed by an inquiry by a Senate committee in 2013 which also did not suggest any drastic measures. In November 2017, the Treasury of the federal government published a consultation document on the regulatory impacts of policy options relating to ticket reselling in Australia. The options are status quo with consumer education, national prohibition on ticket reselling, restricted reselling, improved information disclosure arrangement for ticket resellers, and national ban on the use of ticket-buying "bots" software. The submitted views published by the Treasury were divided over the options, particularly over the national prohibition on ticket reselling but most of them agreed on the option of banning "bots." There is no further update from the Treasury after the consultation.

13.Such ban has been imposed in the United States in 2016, and the United Kingdom in 2017. However, there is little public information over the enforcement of the law. In Australia, New South Wales introduced a similar ban in 2017, followed by South Australia in 2018. The magnitude of the "bots" problem was highlighted by a global online ticket agent which had reported 6 billions of such attempts - or 11 000 per minutes - in its platforms in 27 countries in 2016.

14.See Queensland Parliament (2006).

15.The purpose of the Major Facilities Act 2001 is to provide for the management, operation, use, development and promotion of facilities in Queensland for staging national or international sports, recreational or entertainment events, special events and for other purposes.

16.The purposes of the Major Events Act 2014 are (a) to enable the State to hold major events in Queensland; (b) to deliver economic and social benefits for the State of Queensland by attracting major events to Queensland; (c) to facilitate the safe and orderly running of major events; (d) to promote the enjoyment of participants and spectators of major events; (e) to prevent unauthorized commercial activities in relation to major events; and (f) to allow visiting health practitioners to be exempted from having to register under State law when practising a health profession for a visitor.

17.See CHOICE (2017).

18.Apart from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia also adopted the 10% price cap, despite slight variations of the terms they use. Both New South Wales and South Australia refer it as 10% of the "original supply cost" - the amount for which the ticket was sold to the first purchaser by an authorised seller - in their respective Fair Trading Act. In New South Wales, to protect consumers, the law also abolishes the right of event organizers to cancel tickets for breach of the ticket resale restriction, if the tickets are resold in accordance with the Act (i.e. at a price below the 10% limit).

19.In some other states, the penalty charged to individuals and body corporates is different. For example, in New South Wales and Victoria, the maximum penalty charged to a violating corporation is five times more than the level charged to a violating individual.

20.See Queensland Parliament (2014a) and (2014b). However, there was no mention of whether the online scalping activities were conducted locally or overseas.


References:

Australia

1.Acil Allen Consulting. (2014) Secondary Ticketing Sales Market.

2.Australia Consumer Law. (2018) Ticket onselling.

3.CHOICE. (2017) Ticket to take us for a ride.

4.Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. (2010) Consumers and the ticket market - Ticket onselling in the Australian market.

5.New South Wales Government. (2018) Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Scalping and Gift Cards) Act 2017.

6.Queensland Government. (2019a) Major Events Act 2014.

7.Queensland Government. (2019b) Major Facilities Act 2001.

8.Queensland Parliament. (2006) Record of Proceedings, 31 October.

9.Queensland Parliament. (2014a) Department of Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games - Response to Questions on Notice, Major Events Bill 2014.

10.Queensland Parliament. (2014b) Report No. 51, Major Events Bill 2014.

11.The Senate. (2014) Ticket scalping in Australia.

12.Treasury. (2017) Ticket Reselling in Australia.


Hong Kong

13.Consumer Council. (2018) Soaring Prices of Second-hand Tickets on Reseller Platforms, But No Customer Service & All Risks to be Borne by the Consumers.

14.Home Affairs Bureau.(2018) Sale of Tickets for Events Held at Venues of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. LC Paper No. CB(2)292/18-19(05).

15.Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council. (1941) 16 January.

16.Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council. (2018a) 21 March.

17.Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council. (2018b) 11 April.

18.Urban Ticketing System. (2018) Website.

19.《促將炒賣門票列刑事提高罰款 演出業協會提6建議嚴打黃牛》,星島日報,2018年5月28日。

20.《城市售票網三成票不公開賣 網頁App每次容納2000人 議員促改善》,明報,2018年5月2日。

21.《歌神演唱會門票炒貴20倍》,東方日報,2004年5月29日。



Essentials are compiled for Members and Committees of the Legislative Council. They are not legal or other professional advice and shall not be relied on as such. Essentials are subject to copyright owned by The Legislative Council Commission (The Commission). The Commission permits accurate reproduction of Essentials for non-commercial use in a manner not adversely affecting the Legislative Council, provided that acknowledgement is made stating the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat as the source and one copy of the reproduction is sent to the Legislative Council Library. The paper number of this issue of Essentials is ISE04/18-19.