SeatGeek, Vivid Seats, others sue Washington, D.C., to block its 10% cap on ticket resale prices
SeatGeek, Vivid Seats, TickPick and Gametime have joined a trade association in suing Washington, D.C., to stop a law that limits ticket resale prices and marketplace fees. They are seeking a preliminary injunction before the RESALE Act takes effect on 1 January 2027, arguing that its restrictions could make ticket sales less viable and drive them away from regulated platforms.
The law limits resale prices for most live events to 10% above the original ticket price, including fees and taxes, and caps marketplace service fees at 10% of that price. It also requires platforms to display the original price; most local sporting events and films are exempt. The plaintiffs say fewer than 1% of covered transactions last year involved both buyer and seller in D.C., and estimate that 85–90% were between people elsewhere. They allege the law breaches several constitutional provisions and the Home Rule Act, and have asked the court to invalidate it entirely.
- Ticket marketplaces are challenging D.C.’s 10% resale price cap.
- The law is due to take effect on 1 January 2027.
- The companies say most covered sales involve people outside D.C.
New here? Start with this
Ticket resale platforms let people sell tickets they can no longer use, often through online marketplaces that charge fees. Prices can rise well above the original amount when demand is high, making it harder for some fans to afford events.
Washington, D.C.’s RESALE Act sets limits on resale prices and marketplace fees for most live events, and requires platforms to show the ticket’s original price. Most local sporting events and films are exempt. The law is due to take effect in 2027.
The dispute concerns how far D.C. can regulate ticket sales made through platforms used by people across the country. The companies and trade association argue the restrictions could affect transactions with little connection to D.C.; the case will test their legal challenge to the law.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the cap can argue that resale prices many times above face value make live events inaccessible and let intermediaries profit from scarcity without creating additional value. Limiting mark-ups and fees, while requiring the original price to be shown, could improve transparency and keep more tickets within reach; exemptions for some local events reflect an attempt to target the rules carefully. They may also see D.C. as entitled to protect consumers in its market even when transactions involve people elsewhere.
The case against
Critics can argue that a strict cap may make it uneconomic for sellers and marketplaces to handle tickets, reducing the supply available through regulated platforms and pushing transactions into less transparent channels. They may contend that resale prices reflect demand and sellers’ choices, and that consumers benefit from competing marketplaces rather than government-set limits. If most transactions involve people outside D.C., the law may also impose broad burdens beyond the district and raise legitimate questions about its legal reach.