Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Tuesday, 02/03/2026 at 03:05 in the afternoon. So now we're changing course and looking at H five twelve, which is the regulation of the event ticketing market. We have with us Brando Rich. Brando, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us.

[Brando Rich]: Hello there. Thanks for having me.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So if you can just state your name and affiliation and go on with your testimony.

[Brando Rich]: Great. Thank you. My name is Brando Rich. I'm the founder or co founder and CEO of cashortrade.org. And thank you for having me here today. This is a very passionate part of my life. I've spent many years in this space, and am excited about the current legislation, but also have some concerns. So I have a statement here that I

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: would love to read. Okay, great. Thank you.

[Brando Rich]: Cash or Trade is a Vermont based face value secondary ticket platform, first of its kind built right here in the Green Mountain State with the goal of helping fans to avoid the predatory resale market, and to instead work directly with the industry and fans alike. What began in 2009 as a fun idea to support fans buying, selling, and trading tickets at face value in the parking lots of our favorite bands has become a worldwide movement. Cash or Trade pioneered the face value movement over sixteen years ago, and has helped millions of fans score tickets to their favorite events without paying the exorbitant prices to brokers and obnoxious fees to predatory secondary sites. When we first started, few in the industry believed it would work or even could understand it. Yet as the movement built, we started partnering directly with artists, festivals, venues, and primary ticket companies. It has spawned fruitful relationships where we help them sell tickets, bolstering their events among the face value movement while supporting and protecting their fans. We filled their empty seats and increased revenue at concessions. We cut chargebacks and provide a revenue split on secondary sales. We increase the fan engagement and reduce the box office friction when tickets don't scan or fans get ripped off elsewhere. We increase their customer lifetime value. We support strong legislation that aligns with our mission of protecting fans, and at the same time, we'd like to see this legislation recognize the clear distinction between predatory secondary resale versus face value resale. The secondary ticket market gets treated like it's all the same, but there's a critical difference lawmakers need to understand. Predatory resale is when brokers buy tickets they never intended to use and flip them for the big markups. That money doesn't go to the artists, the venues, or the fans, and it just gets pulled out of the system and drives prices up. Face value resale is completely different. It is when a real fan can't attend and needs a safe way to pass their ticket to another fan at the original price. As artists and promoters may be paid before the event, providing refunds becomes difficult. So face value resale fills that gap. It keeps tickets in circulation, seats filled and prices spared. As this model grows, it needs to be clearly defined in law. If face value resale is regulated the same way as scalping, like strict percentage caps, it becomes impossible to operate because those limits don't ever cover basic costs like credit card fees and fraud protection. If the goal is to protect fans, regulation I'm sorry, I just lost my spot. If the goal is to protect fans, the regulation needs to include an exemption for face value ticket platforms. The way we see it, if there is an opportunity to allow an exemption for when face value resale platforms partner with the artists, festivals, events, or primary ticket companies. Then we see that this could be a fruitful legislation that helps provide serious value to the industry, protecting fans and the industry alike. Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you, Randall. Any questions?

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Monique? Yeah, was just wondering, Maine passed a 10% cap, and I was just wondering if you're doing business in Maine, and if you're still doing it after that cap was passed.

[Brando Rich]: We do business in Maine. We are one of the lowest face value platforms as far as fees go. Not only do we restrict face value, which very few companies actually do, I think we're actually the only one in The United States that restricts to face value only. But also our fees are the lowest too. We don't charge the seller at all, we charge the buyer 10%. But there's a 3% credit card fee, and as we partner directly with the industry, there's often a business arrangement with a revenue split. We wanna see money go towards the venues and go towards the artists and the festivals and primary ticket companies. We wanna work together. So our fear is that regulatory price caps cut into that margin, and it's only gonna impact the industry quite a bit. It's gonna make it very difficult for face value secondary platforms to exist, and therefore those venues won't gain those services that they rely on greatly. Providing an exemption for partnerships might be the route to solve both issues while cutting out the predatory secondary industry.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: I'm Abbey Duke from Burlington. I'm just trying to understand the sort of business model that works. Right? Because we would want a face value market to be able to exist. And I understand that there needs to be a margin because you need to cover your costs. So it sounds like the business model is you charge a fee on the buyers, 10% fee on the buyers, 3% for credit cards to 13. And then are there other costs within that? Like what is the business model that works?

[Brando Rich]: Yeah, that's our fee structure. And there's expenses to run the company and provide that fraud protection and the insurance is basically an insurance in an escrow platform, because we pull it, we take in the funds and hold the funds in escrow before we pay them out. And we take on all that liability, it actually helps the venues quite a bit because they reduce all the chargeback costs that they normally get when fans can't attend and just call up their credit card companies. So by venues being able to lean on secondary platforms, it really helps them reduce those extra costs on their end. At the same time, we help them fill those extra seats so they have a full venue and maximize that revenue on concessions. As far as the business model with working directly, a lot of our business arrangements ends up providing a revenue stream back to those partners. And we would like to see that happen. I think it makes sense. We all want these venues, the artists, the primary ticket companies to be able to support the industry, rather than what we're used to with the predatory market pulling the funds off the top. So having a revenue split would really help. And so anywhere between, you know, there's talks of two, three, 5% that could go back to those partners. Well, if we have a 10% cap, it could cut that out. So then they wouldn't get the revenue split, It makes it more difficult for our platform to exist, especially if we're gonna provide the revenue split. And therefore, it seems like an exemption on partnered events, where the industry, the artists, festivals, venues, primary ticket companies are choosing to work with a face value platform, that's basically an extension of their services and of their offering. So I think we just need to make sure that the legislation is clear about those differences of face value resale versus predatory resale.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Sorry, Emily

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Carris Duncan from Whitington. I just have a quick question about how things are working in Maine. Have you seen any kind of shift in your revenues from Maine?

[Brando Rich]: Maine has few events compared to the rest of the country. So we've processed in Maine, but that currently reflects our model. So no, we haven't felt any impact because we are the lowest model. Most other secondary platforms do charge above face, even if non predatory, they may charge 10 to 20% above face, and then they have their fees, which is like another 10%. So cash or trade hasn't partnered directly with any events in Maine at this time. So we haven't add well, we haven't partnered with any with an additional additional revenue split, I should say. So because of that, we haven't provided that additional revenue to events in Maine.

[Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Okay. And just one last question. Is there, I know you're not for necessarily the cap, but is there a number, if a cap were to be instituted, that would give you enough headroom to do the work that you do?

[Brando Rich]: No. I think the cap would restrict the ability for us to work closely with the event and with the venue to provide great value. I think we would likely see it become very difficult for these services to exist, and it would definitely cut out the ability to provide any sort of revenue towards those venues. So we've talked about, you know, I've been part of NEVA, which I'm sure you're familiar with at this point for two and a half years. Cash or Trade is actually on the steering committee. So we've been involved in the legislation of the Tickets Act and the Fans First Act in the House and the Senate. So we've been a very active participant of this legislation for a long time, but we've seen it sort of take a turn with some of the distinctions. And they say as well, they're like, we absolutely recognize the value of a face value resale platform, and we want to see that exist to support our venues. However, they've been putting in language around the 10% cap, and I've been trying to explain that that does cut into the margin that becomes available for the events and venue to benefit. There's gotta be a way to support the face value service that really supports their events, their industry. They generally don't provide refunds to fans. If that's the case, you're gonna end up with people scrambling on secondary market, on social media sites and Craigslist with no protection as people are kind of going black market rogue with their tickets. There won't be any safe place for the event to direct their fans to process fairly, and so they could just fill their seat. Reducing that box office friction of fans showing up, Oh, I got this ticket off of SubHub or somewhere, and it doesn't scan, it doesn't work. And they're all upset. And it's like, no, I'm sorry, sir. You have to go go back to the end of the line, show sold out. Or somebody's like, I paid $300 for this ticket. You're like, well, we didn't sell it. We sold it for $30. Like, we didn't sell it for 300. And then the fans expectations are out of whack. And we find it really creates a lot of box office friction and really like makes it hard for them to build their customer lifetime value. So there's a lot of reasons why having a secondary platform that's face value and directly aligned with the event benefits. So in the end, we think that the best way to move forward is an exemption if the event directly partners. So say the primary ticketing company, the artist, the festival, the venue has a direct partnership with the service. We've partnered with a number of artists as well. We're even building API integrations with the primary ticket companies to move the ticket inventory right through the platform and cancel the old ticket and deliver a new one in app, providing extra security around the whole thing. And most of all, because it's directly integrated, it gets the face value price of what they paid. So we can cap price right in the app, so they can't even market above face.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Michael?

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Hey, I don't know if this is a question for you. Although I'm confused by face value. When we talk about credit card fees, wouldn't consider that as part of the face value of the ticket. And I wouldn't even consider credit card fees as a original value of the ticket. I would think of what the amount is saying the ticket price is at the venue. So if there's credit card fees associated,

[Anthony "Tony" Micklus (Member)]: that would

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: be additional and not

[Anthony "Tony" Micklus (Member)]: part of that value, correct?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, if we look

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: at you like to just add that all in?

[Brando Rich]: So if you look at the main legislation, the area that speaks on this is is vague in that way. It doesn't specifically cut those out. And it just says 10% above the face value cost, and it includes all fees and charges. So it's not super clear on itemizing the differences. But let me let me do a better job to answer your specific question. What we determine is face value is what a fan paid on the primary market. What did it take for them to get that ticket? So if it was $70 and then there was fees on top, whatever the primary market charged for them to swipe their credit card, ends up $76.5 then that's what that fan paid, they can list it for that amount on cash or trade and not above. But in order for us to run our service, we have a 10% fee. And then we have a 3% credit card processing fee. So however the language works out, it would need to allow for the 10% in order for us to sustain, But then if there's going to be some partnering directly with the event, it would be nice, I'm sure they would agree to this, they want a revenue stream. This is supporting those events. That if tickets sell on our platform, it'd be nice to possibly issue some revenue split to those venues. However, this cap would restrict that and legislation would have to be written to not include the processing fee of that 3% that goes to the credit card company. But what we're proposing is that it gets exempt from the fee cap if it's a direct partnership. That way, the venue and the event can participate in the revenue and the service. And it's not predatory, and everyone's aligned with agreeing for the service. So it feels like that, we've gone around this for two years, We've talked about face value definition, but we recognize that if you try to define a face value platform, you could have others saying their face value, but charging obnoxious fees. And that's why you guys are kind of shooting for the 10%. But if you're partnered, the literal event is choosing it, and we're all here today around this table to support the industry in Vermont. That help answer the face value question there? Was that clear on how we segment out the

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: I think I'm good.

[Brando Rich]: Okay, thank you.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I have a related question. Doesn't a carve out for face value resale mean that any arbitrary fee can be charged on top of it? Like regardless of kind of what the thing that you're saying you set for yourself and your company, have to think about all of the players in this space and what others might do as well. And so it does open that up, think. Is that right?

[Brando Rich]: It would open it up, but it would be aligned with the event. So the event, it would be happy to participate in that revenue and align. So it wouldn't be predatory to them. It would be beneficial.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think what Randall is saying is that you have an exemption if there's an existing contract between his business and the event, then it would be exempt. If he doesn't have that, then the 10% fee cap would apply.

[Brando Rich]: Yes. Thank you. That's yeah, because we're all here today not just to pass some arbitrary legislation, we're trying to protect the events. They're feeling the harm from brokers and bots pulling all the money off the top. So Cash and Trade's here to support those events. That's all we've ever done. So if it is partnered directly with them, then we're all in the same room here focused on supporting those venues and those events.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Jonathan?

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: The risk of prolonging the definition game more than two years, Is the primary market the same as what the venue says the ticket is worth?

[Brando Rich]: Yes.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. Edye? Hi, Randall. I just wanna go to a different part of the bill and make sure that that doesn't need to be modified also. We talk about using the artist name, venue name, or event organizer name in your sales on your website if you don't have an agreement between the artist venue or organizer. So I'm assuming you already have those agreements.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We have

[Brando Rich]: a number of agreements. We don't have agreements with them all. We've been providing secondary services for a long time. We're not partnered with every single event that we sell tickets for.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: And if had tickets that I couldn't at the last minute or a week before, whatever, go to the event, and I wanted to post those tickets and you didn't have an agreement, it would not be okay for you to use any of that,

[Brando Rich]: I guess Extra margin. Well

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Extra margin. The marketing. The marketing. Because

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: you wouldn't have an agreement with me, but not with the event that's Sarah.

[Brando Rich]: I guess what we are proposing as a happy medium, if we don't want to increase the price cap to say a 20%, that I'm proposing that it could be 10% unless we're partnered. Because if we are partnered,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: then it

[Brando Rich]: could be greater.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Totally, I'm not talking about the prices, I'm talking about a different part of the bill, where we talk about the use of the artist name, venue name, or event organizer name, graphic marketing logo, image, or other intellectual property of the artist. And I'm curious how that could impact you on the smaller, if it's an individual who wants to use your site to sell tickets that they can no longer go to the event that they've purchased tickets for, how would that impact your business?

[Brando Rich]: Yes, that would impact greatly, for sure. These were supporting these fans, providing them the space, and the events are grateful because they get to fill those empty seats and reduce all this friction that I explained. So yeah, if we were not able to use any of the artists names, or venue information, yes, it would impact these types of platforms greatly.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So I think the intent of that section is more for a secondary ticket seller to advertise they have tickets for this event, whatever event it was. And I think yours is more for someone wanting to resell their ticket and they can make a description of their ticket. They can say they're going to see Joe Walsh and here's my tickets. So I don't know that that would affect you.

[Brando Rich]: It would be hard to not be able to say that like, you know, in some sort of messaging or marketing to say that like, no cash or trade has tickets available for this event at face value or below. If we couldn't point to the event information, I don't know how we would present that. Yes.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Understood, okay. So we may have to rework that a little bit.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Brando Rich]: Thank you.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: I'm still trying to get my head around the reach value issue and what sort of markup from the price of the ticket that the event is posting for sale to begin with. Yes. So let's say the event says $100 ticket and you partner with them. But you don't have a cap, right? You don't have a 10% cap. Tell me if I'm wrong, you would be able to charge really any amount over the event price? 50%, 10 well, 10%, you're not comfortable with thirty, forty, 50, whatever. Right?

[Brando Rich]: I I would say yes, but the event would be partnering with us on that. So if they saw that, you know, they wouldn't want to partner with us if it's an obnoxious fee on top. So we would choose something that's appropriate that the event is getting the split on. So they would say, hey, if you're gonna sell it for this much, this is how much money we want of the split. So it would actually work itself out there because, one, we don't wanna charge that much, are the lowest fee platform there is, and that if we did like 2% or 5% over to the venue, then the venue would gain that 5%, it would be beneficial to them. If it was going to be 1020%, then we like above that 30%, 40%, then we would likely lose sales. The venue would want more of a split. So either way, it supports the event rather than pulling the money out.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: Yep. And I think I kind of understand that the event is gonna be made whole there. I'm just thinking about the consumer. I think the bill is intended to protect the event, right? But also the consumer. And I'm just trying to figure out how that works out.

[Brando Rich]: Absolutely. Like the venue who's putting on the event has already priced their face value tickets in a way that's agreeable to the consumer. So they're not charging $300 for their ticket, they're charging 75. So in the same way that they would be working with us, we're an extension of their own service. They're not going to want to charge $300 for a secondary ticket. They're going to still want it to be very low to provide that value to the consumer.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: Yeah, I guess I'd like to hear from, I guess the event folks who came in with sponsoring the legislation,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: what they think about that.

[Brando Rich]: Yeah, I mean, you could imagine they're gonna be excited to get some revenue, and you could imagine that they will also be excited to have a service that's an extension of what they're doing. So they don't have to manage the support or the charge backs or the insurance, etcetera.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: Okay, thanks.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Anybody else have questions? So, Randall, when someone purchases on your site, is there a breakdown of the charges that so they're paying, here's the original cost of the ticket, here's this is a fee for using your credit card, and here's our fee for providing the service?

[Brando Rich]: Yes. A we show the original price. We show the platform fee of 10%. Yep. We have a line item for the partnership fee in the case we're partnered directly with the event. And then we show the 3% credit card processing fee.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So everybody knows up, they know upfront what they're buying.

[Brando Rich]: And we do provide the all in pricing as well. So right on the first page, see the total price before you get to the checkout as well.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right. But when you get to checkout, it tells you it breaks everything down. Yes. Okay. And I'm wondering, is that what consumers see on other sites? Or are they just seeing, it's a $300 ticket and steal. Then by the time you get the checkout, it's $350 with no breakdown of

[Brando Rich]: So since the all in pricing and junk feeds bill that president Biden passed, All pretty much all sites are showing the all in price up front.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yep.

[Brando Rich]: And then they they're supposed to show the breakdown, and I believe they all do at this point.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[Brando Rich]: That's been nice for transparency across the board.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. For sure. But I'm wondering if they're those platforms are showing the original price, And then all the other fees are I'd just be interested to see what those other platforms are showing.

[Brando Rich]: Well, they're not showing face value as the top price because we are the only ones who are face value. Like I said, there's a number of non predatory platforms, but they're just not our model with face value or below. Right. Think of us as an extension of the primary ticket company. We're just extending the secondary service, and the event is happy to partner into that service. Okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any other questions for Brandon? Well, thank you. I appreciate you coming back to talk with us. Think it's been helpful for us to better understand your process and that the processes of the secondary market.

[Brando Rich]: Thank you. It's been sixteen years in this space. We started this in Johnson, Vermont. Now we're in Burlington. If it's helpful for me to come into your office there, I'm happy to do that as well. Well, you. We appreciate it. An area we're very passionate about. We wanna protect fans, but we wanna protect the events as well.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you. If you wanna stay on, Susan Evans McCour is going to speak with us too from the Vermont Arts Council. You can listen in if you like.

[Brando Rich]: Great, thank you. Susan?

[Susan Evans McClure]: Susan Evans McClure, the executive director of the Vermont Arts Council. Nice to spend all day with you. So I wanted to thank Randall and for testifying. It's great to see the perspectives of know, it's complicated industry across the country, and we really appreciate kind of the spirit that they're approaching with. Right? Like, we all love live music, and it is great to be able to see more live music. I wanted to explain a little more about the 10% of the price the price cap at 10%. You know, that 10% is becoming the national standard in terms of regulating this market. The idea with 10% is that that is enough money so the reseller is not losing money on the experience. So when they buy their ticket, they resell it. And there's gonna be fees associated with reselling anything and the reseller is not gonna lose money on that experience. At the end of the day, when a face value reseller is reselling something and making money off that sale, they're making money off of the artists and the venues. And I appreciate that was brought up this idea of profit sharing or kind of partnering with a venue to share the profits related with resale. I think that may be something that happens more outside of our small state. That's not something that our venues have been bringing to me as even an issue that they're experiencing. I think when it comes to the venues, as you've heard from them, their primary focus is they wanna be interacting directly with consumers. They set the prices that are right for the market and they want consumers to have the ability to access those prices. Things do happen as we've talked about, right? Like people are gonna get sick, you're not able to go. We're not trying think 10% is not going to kill a secondary market, but it is gonna protect Vermont consumers. This idea of agreements and partnerships is something that some venues you have with a ticket seller, you would have kind of an authorized resale platform. And actually that's something that in the working of the bill, Cameron Legislative Council has brought up, should we be more explicit in that section about using name and likeness? So if there is an agreement for reselling, like could they use the name and likeness? That's something he was working on the legal side up to, to make sure we're covered there. The idea of creating kind of a carve out for venues that have partnership agreements or venues that are even a carve out for a face value marketplace. I think that presents a lot of challenges from the consumer side and from the enforcement side. We fully support face value sales of resells of tickets. I think that is great. I think when you create a carve out, you create a loophole where anyone can step in. And what representative Olson brought up is, I think a really important point about that they could sell it at face value and set any markup they want. I think when you're hearing from an organization like Cash or Trade that is doing it for the right reasons, they're not doing that right now. But that's the idea of having kind of guardrails on these systems is that you don't want to just rely Some of the actors in this marketplace have showed us that you cannot rely on their goodwill and good behavior because that's not protecting consumers. So I think where our stance comes down to this is that everyone who's reselling a ticket should be subject to the same reasonable regulations that support and protect consumers. That our goal is not to end secondary ticket sales forever, but in a state like Vermont, this might look different than a band that can sell out Madison Square Garden for three nights. That's really different than the experiences we're seeing here. And we are not seeing that even when things are sold out. We have community minded ways where people are sharing their tickets in ways that are not predatory, right? We've all seen tickets on I'm not saying front porch forum should be our resale model, but people have sold tickets on there too. So again, think the focus on the 10% price cap is about protecting consumers. And when you set that price cap that works for everyone, then if a business wants to operate within that model, that's great. We support them doing that.

[Brando Rich]: Great. I do think there is a little misunderstanding on the on the part of the the event partnering, where there's this exemption that lets them charge whatever they want. Well, it's the event directly setting those prices. So the event could already do that on their primary sales if they wanted to, but they recognize that there's only so much that they could charge. So just imagine this is working with the event and as an extension of their primary sales. So there's really not this ability to just charge whatever you want. This is the actual event, like setting that price. So I just wanted to make that distinction.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thanks, Brando. If you wanted to chime in, just kind of raise your hand or something, but

[Brando Rich]: I apologize. I wasn't sure. My bad. Not problem.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: What if there were So I mean, I kinda like this idea of venues partnering with resellers because I think it brings safety to a consumer. And if there were, instead of an exemption, if there were a different cap that they could charge. So without that partnership agreement, then it stays at 10%. If you have the partnership agreement, it could be up to 20%. I think that's something we should think about because I see the value of having those partnerships, the value with the venues, the value for the consumer, and then the value for the business, the secondary business. Just something that I think maybe we should think about.

[Susan Evans McClure]: I would wanna defer to the attorney general on that too, in terms of enforcement and that would be Who would be responsible for looking at those contracts and seeing if agreements exist when you're looking at that markup?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. But I think the venues, they're certainly going to know what the secondary, if they're partnering with a secondary marketer, they're going to know what the markups are. And so if you have one that's outside the bounds and decides they're gonna get 40%, their venue is gonna turn them into the attorney general's office. Think.

[Anthony "Tony" Micklus (Member)]: Tony? Well, first of all, I'm curious, is this a common practice where a venue would subcontract to another company and also sell tickets themselves?

[Susan Evans McClure]: It's not uncommon. And there are two examples of that in Vermont. Actually, Church in Brattleboro currently has a partnership with Cash or Trade. And UVM's platform, it's through a company called Pachyolin and they have a resale platform built into that technology. So the idea is, and it makes it, you know, it does make it more upfront as Britt was just shared here that it makes it more upfront that you can resell your ticket kind of easily through that platform. Our stance on that too is even if you're doing that, there can be incentives for that reseller to markup, to encourage people to set their own prices. So what was just shared about cash or trade, you can only sell your ticket through that platform at face value. For other examples, you can set any price you want for your ticket. So I could buy a ticket to a UVM hockey game and it's $24.50. And I could go and say, I can't make it. I'm going to sell it on their resell platform. And I could just say, and I'm going sell it for $75 So every platform does it differently now. So if a company organization has that partnership and they wanna do that and it's easier for their fans or consumers to do that, our belief is that setting that 10% price cap even there with the 10% price cap could still apply because that is what we are saying is reasonable for the consumer, for the people who will be buying those tickets on the consumer end.

[Anthony "Tony" Micklus (Member)]: To follow-up on that, I mean, in my understanding, if I'm contracting with someone to resell, that the amount that they would be able to resell it for would be part of the negotiation of that contract.

[Susan Evans McClure]: Yes. So if, well, if it could be, but not all of them do right now. So there are This actually came up when we were talking with Vermont Green FC that they're looking at a resell platform. And some of the resell platforms, as the organization, they could say, We only want people to resell tickets at face value. And Son, you can't say that. That's not built in.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So if we I mean, I'm just thinking out loud is if we were to create this 20%, that it would only be for face value ticket sales.

[Susan Evans McClure]: And if there's a sign like a partnership or a contract, basically, between them and the reseller.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You know, it wouldn't be open to to the reseller to to mark the price of the ticket up and then get another 20 Exactly. To be a face value sale.

[Susan Evans McClure]: And I think that could potentially save the keep the focus on the most egregious actors. Right? Like, that's still the people who are the the examples you saw from the Flynn, right, of the tickets that were on sale for $300, that would still not be allowed. That would still be well beyond the 10% price gap. And again, we don't mean, if working for an organization or a venue, that's also not our role to say, you have to change your practice because it's not working. We are really focused on the worst of the worst, The ones who are kind of really making it hard for Vermont consumers to access the things they want to access fairly.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: So sort of a thought, kind of a question about the idea of the price cap of 10%. And your comments before about we don't want the resellers to lose money. I think there's a saying, there's no mission without margin. So those companies really need to make money. And I think we need to think about what is the way that we deal with the bad actors, but also make sure the cap is not so low that we're not pushing people out of the market because companies aren't able to make money? And then a second thought or question is when you thought about that price increase of 10%, did you think at all about a minimum as well? 10% of $5 is very different than 10% of $200 But for the service, it's the same amount of work. And so was curious about that price of transaction for tickets that are really cheap. If it's a $6 ticket, that's not necessarily going be cost effective for a reseller to sell and be able to charge $0.60 So anyway, sort of a thought and kind of a question about if there's sort of thought about that, about a myth about that piece of it.

[Susan Evans McClure]: I think to answer that question, we've really been focused on aligning with colleagues in other states and what they are telling us works. And especially in Maine, they've said the 10% has worked. So that's where we went to. I think we're I mean, again, we're back to like if we come up with something that protects the venues and the consumers, that's what we're looking for. I think I'd really be interested to hear more from our Vermont venues too on if there is a real want or need for this reselling option, even a face value reselling option. I've been talking about this for over a long time with our Vermont venues, and that is not something they're asking for right now. It may exist and it may may be something they want, but it's not like top of their list and that hasn't come up. So I'd be interested to go back to the our coalition that's been working on this and say, you know, is that is that a need that you all have?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think it's an option. So if it's something they don't wanna participate in, they don't have to, and it stays at 10%. Think Brando's business, I mean, I'm not in the business, but I do have a little bit of a business background. It seemed to me it would make sense to be able to get into a relationship like that, where I can guarantee my customers that I have a place where you can resell your ticket, you'll get face value back. And it's protecting me as a business from these huge losses that I take because somebody gets a ticket that's been resold and resold and resold, and they're letting those people come in for nothing, basically, I think it's a win for everybody, and it's just an option. So it could stay at 10%, could go to 20% if you have that relationship.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: I'm not sure if it's a question for you or Brandon, but thinking back to Brandon's description about itemization. If I remember the scenario you showed the face value of what the event would be charging. And then the other components that the consumer has to pay. And I'm wondering if the notice could incorporate, I mean, the itemization, I guess, could incorporate a notice to the consumer that, hey, you got an option. You can go purchase from this partner organization, or you can go buy directly from the event, and then they could choose. I

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: think they're starting at the event. They're purchasing their ticket from the event. They're not going to, or if looking at it, if they go to the event that's sold out, they'll go to cash a trade and see if those tickets are available on the secondary market, right?

[Herb Olson (Member)]: Or, I don't know what the marketing is of these tickets, but it makes sure, maybe I'm all wet on this, but I can imagine that a consumer, the first notice that they would have of what the price would be, would be from cash trade. This is what we can sell it. If I was a consumer, I wanna know what the price would be if bought from the event.

[Susan Evans McClure]: I think if you have a contract with an authorized reseller, so personal example, which you're all sick of hearing my personal ticket examples, we're gonna go to a Celtics game the March, and it is a Ticketmaster event, but you can if the game is sold out, it's actually or even if not, you can buy a resell tick a resold ticket directly through the platform. So if I and again, I'd have to I would wanna bring in a venue in Vermont to hear what that looks like now. So if you go and the show is sold out, you would go to the venue first to try to buy the ticket. And that would be actually relates to the rest of the bill, which is we wanna be driving people to the venue who's selling the ticket. So you go there and it says, Oh, we're sold out. They would say, but we have an authorized resell platform. Check if there's tickets available on whatever that platform is.

[Anthony "Tony" Micklus (Member)]: I just want getting back to the whole thing of contracts, like reseller contracts. To me, wouldn't it make sense to have an exemption if you have a contract with the venue, the law wouldn't apply. It would just apply as a default. Like, say cash or trade, they make an agreement where the venue provider says it's okay, in our contract, you can mark it up to 30%. But in a situation where there's nothing there, we say, all right, it's 10%, because you don't specify it in the contract.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Possibility between the two parties. I mean, venue's not wanting to make sure that their customers are getting shocked at either.

[Susan Evans McClure]: Yeah. And that is, I mean, right, as that was shared too, that the venue doesn't want their people, their consumers to get screwed over by ticket prices either. It's not a good look for them as the venue, so they don't want that either.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Susan, as you're going back to your team, venues, I'm wondering if you could ask them, is it going to be a hardship for them to list authorized ticket resellers on their website? I'm trying to come up with ways that, in my head, ways that we can simplify this for the consumer and also for the attorney general. And so if there are these actual partnerships, then I would assume that the venue would be comfortable listing it.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: And I just don't know how much of

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: a burden it is to act.

[Susan Evans McClure]: Yeah, I can definitely ask them about that too. I think that the thing about this also that has been brought up today, it really does put it on the venue also. So if they don't want to do that, they don't have to. There will be plenty of venues who will say, No, I don't wanna do that. And that's fine. Again, we're just we're trying to really weed out the the worst of the worst with this. We're not trying to impede the things that are working. Like, we're not trying to break the things that are working. We're trying to fix the things that are broken. So yes, can check with them on that. And I'm also gonna yeah. And ask you about the the hardship, but also the need. Is there are they are they finding there is a need for this right now?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Or do they think in the future?

[Susan Evans McClure]: Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Something they might want to consider down the road. So it's an odd Yeah. Becomes an option. It's not

[Brando Rich]: like,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you must do this.

[Susan Evans McClure]: Exactly.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. And we can have conversations with our legislative counsel and with the attorney general's office as well, make sure that we're not placing a heavy burden on the attorney general either. Yeah, exactly. It sounds like Randall may have some venues that might not be in your usual circle. But do you think you could, for Vermont venues, do you think

[Brando Rich]: you could check-in with them and

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: include them in your survey?

[Susan Evans McClure]: Yeah, definitely. My understanding, and he can correct me. I'm looking back at the screen that you know. He can correct. My understanding is the only one in Vermont that partners with Cash or Trade is Stone Church. There are other face value ticket platforms that are operating in America also right now. And I don't know if any of them have agreements in Vermont, but I can look into that too.

[Brando Rich]: Freda? There are a number of venues in Vermont that use secondary services. Some use cash to trade, but some use other platforms. They're not necessarily face value like cash or trade is. But yes, like higher ground and other platforms do other venues do leverage secondary platforms to help support their service. I think it's And if I can say one more thing on the main and the price cap of 10%, Maine really just passed that very recently. There has not been an economic case study that I know of that really outlines whether 10% was the right number. And no one's really focused on whether it's going to be enough to support the secondary platform, because they're more focused on cutting out secondary ticketing. So I just wanna sort of make that point that we're 10%, it's tight. Face value, we're trying to employ people in Vermont. It's a hard business. If we're gonna do revenue splits, it might not make it, and they won't have those services. Maine passed it, very in its infant stages. They don't have a lot of events, and there's no economic case study yet. So I just wanna make that clear when we talk about that Maine passed it as a valid sort of case study reflection. Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thanks, Randall. Okay, lots to think about. I think we're back on this on Friday. We'll be hearing from someone from StumpHub and the Secretary of State's office. How did you hear from the secretary?

[Susan Evans McClure]: That maybe related to the registry that we've

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yes. Let's see. Now I'm gonna put it in, we can probably let them know that we don't need them to. I will be moving that. Okay. Anything else? Susan, thank you. You. Randall, thank you. Been a helpful conversation this afternoon.

[Brando Rich]: Thank you so much, everyone. Really appreciate it.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think that's it for today. Tomorrow we're back until 09:00. We're having data privacy hearing at 09:00 and Room 10. Just wanna make sure the committee understands what we're fixing up, talking about S-seventy one or H-two zero eight. We're not talking about data privacy legislation. We're having people coming in from around the country who are experts on privacy issues that are going on. They're just here to educate us. We're here to listen. And whatever we take from that, if we need to apply it to legislation, then we will. But it's more of a learning educational component than having a hearing to have a debate or any other. So that's what tomorrow is all about. Any questions? K. So we will see you at nine tomorrow at Room 10. Until, Kiera, I think we can go offline. Thank you.