Yesterday afternoon, the UK’s Competition And Markets Authority released a damning update on its consumer protection case investigation relating to Live Nation-owned ticketing giant Ticketmaster.
That investigation was launched after the company put tickets on sale for the UK leg of the Oasis Live 25 reunion tour last year and there was widespread criticism from fans that ticket prices were seemingly increasing as they waited in the queue on the Ticketmaster platform. It was widely reported that this was the result of Ticketmaster employing ‘dynamic pricing’ on the Oasis tour.
In a blog article published yesterday the CMA says it believes that customers were not given “clear and timely information about how the pricing of tickets would work”, with the result that “many fans were under the impression that Ticketmaster used an algorithmic pricing model to adjust its prices in real time”.
Last month, Ticketmaster’s UK Managing Director Andrew Parsons gave oral evidence to a Parliamentary committee examining dynamic pricing and consumer protection, during which he gave a robust defence of the company’s ticketing practices.
Throughout his appearance in front of the Business And Trade Select Committee Parsons assured members that “Ticketmaster is not behaving like a bunch of sharks and just profiteering”, and repeatedly told MPs that Ticketmaster does not engage in “bait and switch” pricing, “does not change” ticket prices during checkout, and that the “price you see is the price you will end up paying”.
He added that it is “very rare that a price would change during an on-sale”, saying “we work to the view that this should not happen”.
Responding to Joshua Reynolds MP, who told the committee that Ticketmaster had specifically said that its “approach to dynamic pricing is similar to airlines and hotel rooms”, Parsons prevaricated, saying that there was “probably a time when it was useful to be able to make the association between the two, but I could not be clearer: we do not operate technology or interact with pricing in the same way that those types of services do. That is not how we work”.
CMU has now discovered that this statement is directly contradicted by what Ticketmaster itself published in its terms and conditions, specifically a ‘Purchase Policy’ document on its website, which were in effect at the time Parsons spoke to MPs.
On the day that Parsons told MPs that there was “probably a time” that the comparison between dynamic pricing and “airlines and hotel rooms” was “useful”, clause 4.3 of Ticketmaster’s legally binding terms and conditions governing ticket sales said not only that the company could “increase or decrease” the sale price of a ticket “at any time, based on demand”, but explicitly spelled out, “this is similar to how airline tickets and hotel rooms are sold and is commonly referred to as ‘Dynamic Pricing’”.
Even more damningly, within two weeks or less of Parsons telling MPs that Ticketmaster “does not change ticket prices during checkout”, the company had entirely rewritten clause 4.3 to say, “Occasionally, event partners may decide to decrease or increase the price of a ticket after it has gone on sale. The price that you see when selecting a ticket on an event page will not change at any stage during your purchase process (ie from the time you view available tickets until you complete your purchase)”.
While oral evidence given at select committee hearings is generally not given under oath, on the rare occasions it is “witnesses are liable to the laws of perjury”. Parsons’ evidence was given on an informal basis, however, and that evidence is protected by “absolute privilege”, which means that select committee witnesses “are immune from civil or criminal proceedings founded upon that evidence; nor can their evidence be relied upon in civil or criminal proceedings against any other person”.
The House Of Commons guide for witnesses giving evidence to select committees clarifies that even when witnesses are giving informal evidence they should “answer questions put to them by a committee carefully, fully and honestly. Deliberately attempting to mislead a committee is a contempt of the House”.
When asked exactly when the wording of the company’s terms and conditions had been changed, a Ticketmaster spokesperson swerved the question, instead referring us to a letter the company sent to select committee chair Liam Byrne after Parsons had appeared in front of his committee. In that letter Ticketmaster complains that “the term ‘dynamic pricing’ does not have any statutory definition, and it is not used consistently in public conversation”.
“To some people”, continues the company, dynamic pricing “means automated surge pricing”, but for others - possibly mainly people working for Ticketmaster - it “encompasses all changes made to prices first posted for sale”.
As a result, Ticketmaster tells Byrne, “we have been reviewing how we refer to ‘dynamic pricing’ in our communications and in our purchase policy”. All references to dynamic pricing were, the company says, removed from its website in 2024 “but our purchase policy has taken longer to review and update given its legal nature”.
Quite how credible that claim is - given that the ‘legally weighty’ purchase policy was rapidly updated within a couple of weeks of Parsons’ committee appearance - is another matter.
The change was made, says Ticketmaster not only to “provide greater clarity concerning what it is we do” but to make it clear that “we do not deploy the same practices as those which are used in other sectors, such as travel and hospitality”.
In yesterday’s update, the CMA said that although Ticketmaster has “made changes to some aspects of its ticket sales process”, the CMA “does not currently consider these changes are sufficient to address its concerns”, and so the organisation has written to Ticketmaster asking it to make additional changes to its process, “including to the information it provides to customers, when it provides that information, and how it labels some of its tickets”.
CMU asked Ticketmaster: “Did Mr Parsons intentionally mislead MPs when he gave evidence to the parliamentary committee, or he did not have the full facts in front of him?” Despite several follow ups on this question, Ticketmaster has not responded.
