UK regulator the Competition And Markets Authority has told Live Nation-subsidiary Ticketmaster that it is “preparing to litigate” over potential breaches of consumer law relating to the way it sold tickets for the Oasis reunion tour. In particular those concerns relate to how tickets were presented to ticket buyers, whether dynamic pricing was used or not, and how pricing was communicated to fans who waited in “a lengthy queue” to purchase tickets.
Earlier this year, the CMA said that it believed 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”.
In a document sent to Parliament’s Business And Trade Committee which was published yesterday, the CMA says that it “did not find evidence that Ticketmaster used an algorithmic pricing model to adjust ticket prices in real time according to changing conditions like high demand”.
It goes on to say that “after opening an investigation into Ticketmaster’s compliance with consumer protection law in relation to the sale of Oasis tickets”, and gathering evidence from fans about their experiences trying to buy tickets, it has identified two “concerns” in consumer law relating to the way the ticketing giant conducted the on-sale.
Having used its regulatory powers “to obtain evidence from Ticketmaster and others”, the CMA finds that Ticketmaster sold “platinum” tickets “for near 2.5 times the price of equivalent standard tickets” even though those supposedly premium tickets “did not offer additional benefits and were often located in the same area of the stadium”.
Furthermore, consumers were not informed “that there were two categories of standing tickets at different prices”, and that after the cheaper standing tickets sold out “more expensive standing tickets were released”. The result of this, says the CMA, is that many fans waited “in a lengthy queue without understanding what they would be paying”, a problematic situation compounded by the fact that they then had to “decide whether to pay a higher price than expected”.
The CMA document, which was provided to committee members in advance of a hearing on Tuesday 24 Jun, is a damning indictment of the way Ticketmaster conducted ticket sales for one of the most anticipated and highest profile live music events the UK has ever seen.
It notes that, “due to the date on which the Oasis sale occurred, the CMA is using its powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002”, rather than the more recent “Digital Markets, Competition And Consumers Act 2024”, which was not in force at the time.
It then notes that the legal proceedings are pretty much a last resort, after Ticketmaster “declined to provide undertakings” to the CMA to resolve a “fundamental disagreement” between the way Ticketmaster and the CMA interpret consumer law. Nor, says the CMA, would Ticketmaster “indicate whether there is a form of undertakings which it would be prepared to offer” to address the regulator’s concerns, despite Ticketmaster being “given an opportunity to respond and agree undertakings”.
Under the Enterprise Act legislation, explains the CMA, it is “required to consult with Ticketmaster and try to seek a voluntary resolution to its concerns”.
However, given that Ticketmaster has “not offered or agreed” to a voluntary resolution, it has “now discharged its obligation to consult with Ticketmaster” and will, instead, prepare more formal measures while, “in parallel” continuing to “engage with Ticketmaster in an effort to secure a voluntary resolution”.
Though that other option will, concludes the CMA, require a “clear and timely commitment” by Ticketmaster.
Clear and timely commitments are, perhaps, something that Ticketmaster isn’t so great at.
Having been given a clear and timely commitment that two of the company’s most senior UK executives - Phil Bowdery, Live Nation’s Executive Vice President Of Touring International Live Music and Andrew Parsons, Ticketmaster’s UK head honcho - would give evidence to the Business And Trade Committee’s 24 Jun hearing at 3.25pm, MPs were left twiddling their thumbs after they failed to turn up.
After - in Westminster terms - a “staggering” fifteen minute delay during which proceedings had to be delayed, sources say that the executives arrived “red-faced and sweaty” for their long-standing appointment to give evidence to MPs, having apparently been seen “legging it down corridors” to make it to the meeting.
Quite what the reason for that delay was remains unclear - representatives for the company have not responded to a request for clarification - but one Westminster source CMU spoke to said it was “astonishing” that they were unable to turn up on time, and that as far as they could remember “no one” had been that late to a committee hearing before.
The hearing itself was fairly disastrous for the live giant, with committee chair Liam Bryne getting increasingly frustrated with Bowdery’s failure to give straight answers to questions put to him about Live Nation’s “substantial market power”.
Throughout the fractious hearing - during which Bowdery repeatedly asserted that he “did not recognise” various numbers and statistics put to him by the committee - MP Sarah Edwards noted that Live Nation’s CEO Michael Rapino was alleged by the US Department Of Justice to have “effectively scolded the Oak View Group, which is co-owner of the UK Co-op Live, for reportedly attempting to compete with you”, before going on to ask Bowdery, “I just wondered whether you were intending to bring this type of collusion to the UK?”
MP Charlie Maynard then pressed Bowdery on the relationship between Live Nation in the UK and rival tour promoter SJM Concerts, quizzing the exec on whether the two companies were “partners” or “competitors”, before asking “how many companies do you co-own with SJM?”
This, said Bowdery, was information that he was “not privy to”, something that was met with incredulity by Maynard, who then reeled off a list of entities in which both Live Nation and SJM Concerts hold stakes, including “DF Concerts… Boomtown Festival… Camp Bestival… Academy Music Group” and the defunct V Festival.
“What is weird about this”, continued Maynard, “is that you say you are competitors, but you co-own a whole load of companies together”. When Bowdery responded, saying that Maynard was talking about co-owned venues, but that, “I compete with [SJM owner Simon Moran] as far as promoting is concerned”, Maynard shot back: “the words ‘vampire squid’ are going through my head…”
Ticketmaster hasn’t been having the best time of it recently. Just a few weeks ago, it was revealed that Live Nation’s top lawyer, International Group Counsel Selina Emeny, had been offered up for meetings to “address any worries” that a prolific tout - later jailed for fraud - had about changes to the law regarding ticket resale.
And, of course, Live Nation has previous form when it comes to the way it presents ‘special’ ticketing packages. In November last year, CMU broke the news of a potentially explosive lawsuit filed in the UK by collecting society PRS against the live giant that centres on the way it accounts gross receipts for VIP ticketing packages.
In that case, said an exclusive statement given to CMU by PRS, Live Nation had shown “disregard” for the need for music creators to “receive rightful payment for their works”.
Back in March, CMU discovered that Ticketmaster’s UK boss Andrew Parson had given what appeared to be misleading evidence to the same Parliamentary committee, after he told MPs that there was “probably a time when it was useful to be able to make the association” between the ticketing company’s approach to market-responsive pricing and automated dynamic pricing employed by hotels and airlines, “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”.
Our investigation showed that, on the same day that Ticketmaster’s top banana said this to MPs, the ticketing company’s own legally binding terms and conditions 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’”.
Addressing this in last week’s session, MP Matt Western took Parsons to task, saying, “when we last saw you, which was about February, you were questioned about Ticketmaster’s approach to dynamic pricing. You were categoric in your statement that Ticketmaster does not use dynamic pricing, which was contradicted by a statement on your website. Can you be absolutely clear to the Committee today? Were you mistaken in your comments, or was the policy on the website misleading your customers?”
An extremely awkward looking Parsons spluttered “it was clear to us that the… uhmm… uh… terms and conditions that you… uh… that you referenced were… pr… uh.. providing meaning around this word ‘dynamic’, which is… uh… complex and difficult, and it was best to get rid of it”.
“Even though you are in this business”, Western pressed, “you did not recognise the word ‘dynamic’?”
“Well we did”, replied Parsons haltingly, “and we determined that it was best to be removing it. I think the important point is that what we did before and what we do… uh… since that change has… uh.. since that change to the… uh… site… that you… speak of, has not changed”.
Clear as mud!
