D.C. RESALE Act Draft Shifts From Resale-Only Price Cap to Broad Ticket Pricing Authority

Committee print would replace a hard 110% resale cap with mayoral authority to regulate fees, dynamic pricing, and resale prices across primary and secondary markets.

A Washington, D.C., ticketing bill that began as a direct attack on the resale market is evolving into a broader effort to regulate pricing across the live-event marketplace.

The Council of the District of Columbia’s Committee on Public Works and Operations is scheduled to take up Bill 26-0224, the “Restricting Egregious Scalping Against Live Entertainment (RESALE) Amendment Act of 2026,” at a Monday markup. The bill was introduced in April 2025 by Councilmember Charles Allen and co-sponsored by several Council members.

As introduced, the RESALE Act would have capped resale prices at face value plus 10%, banned speculative ticket sales, required high-volume resellers to register, and imposed all-in pricing, refund, and disclosure requirements.

The committee print retains several of those protections, including the speculative sales ban, all-in pricing, refunds, anti-bot requirements, reseller licensing, and disclosure of transfer limits. It also requires resale platforms to disclose original purchase prices and raises the surety bond for resellers listing 50 or more tickets annually from $10,000 to $25,000.

But the most significant change involves the proposed price cap.

Instead of a fixed 110% cap, the revised bill would give the Mayor broad authority to regulate ticket pricing across both primary and secondary markets—including fees, dynamic pricing, and resale markups tied to the original purchase price.

The shift suggests lawmakers are growing more cautious about targeting resale alone while leaving primary-market pricing untouched. Many consumer advocates testified on that questionable direction during an October hearing on the bill, pointing out the inherent problems in proposing strict regulation on the resale marketplace while a majority of states and the federal government were in the process of pursuing an antitrust case against the largest player in the primary ticketing business.

The committee report acknowledges that a resale-only cap could shift price inflation elsewhere—particularly as primary platforms expand dynamic pricing—and could weaken independent resale competition without addressing dominant primary-market behavior.

It says a “broad and flexible regulatory mandate” would allow the District to address the ticket-buying experience holistically rather than “play price-gouging whack-a-mole.”

That framing marks a departure from the bill’s original focus on scalpers and resale platforms. Supporters, including local venues and national music industry groups, have argued that resale markups, bots, and speculative listings block fan access to tickets at artist-set prices.

Critics counter that a resale-only cap could reduce consumer choice, push transactions into less-regulated channels, and strengthen Ticketmaster by limiting independent resale competition.

The Coalition for Ticket Fairness reiterated that argument Monday.

“We’ve seen time and again how efforts to restrict resale backfire,” said Geoff Vetter, a spokesperson for the coalition. “They push transactions into darker corners of the internet, make it harder for independent businesses to compete, and leave fans with fewer safe, transparent options.”

Vetter added that lawmakers should focus on “a marketplace with too little competition and too little transparency.”

The report also places the bill in the context of broader scrutiny of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. In May, a New York jury found the company to be operating as an illegal monopoly in the landmark antitrust case against it, which is still being fought through post-verdict motions. The Federal Trade Commission also sued the companies in September 2025, alleging illegal resale practices, facilitation of broker activity, and deceptive fee disclosures. Ticketmaster has denied wrongdoing.

Separately, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb continues to pursue antitrust claims alongside a coalition of states, even after the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement. In April, Schwalb called a jury verdict finding Live Nation liable for monopolization “a significant win” for venues, artists, and fans.

The report notes that testimony and lobbying raised concerns about whether the District could appear to take sides in a dispute between ticketing marketplaces.

The revised bill still regulates resale, banning speculative sales, requiring marketplace seller verification, imposing licensing on high-volume resellers, mandating disclosure of original ticket prices, and preserving the option for future resale caps through rulemaking.

By shifting away from a fixed cap and toward broad executive authority, the committee print reflects a central critique of the original bill: high ticket prices are not driven by resale alone.

For consumers, the impact will depend on how the Mayor uses that authority if the bill advances. The framework allows for future rules on resale pricing, fees, dynamic pricing, and other cost controls.

It also creates a more flexible structure for regulating a ticketing market rapidly evolving under pressure from antitrust litigation, federal enforcement, all-in pricing rules, and growing consumer frustration.

The question is whether lawmakers can protect fans from fraud and deceptive pricing without reinforcing the dominant primary-market system that has fueled much of the backlash.