New England Artists Offer Clout to Industry-Backed Push for Ticket Resale Cap in Massachusetts

Noah Kahan, Dropkick Murphys, Aimee Mann and dozens of other artists support the proposal – backed by groups like the Live Nation/Irving Azoff-centered Music Artists Coalition – that seeks to introduce major legislation without a public hearing by attaching it to a budget bill

A group of more than 40 artists with ties to New England is urging Massachusetts lawmakers to approve a cap on concert ticket resale prices, adding prominent public support to an industry-backed effort to move stalled ticket legislation through the Legislature during the closing days of its formal session.

Noah Kahan, Dropkick Murphys, Aimee Mann, Pixies, Goose, Lake Street Dive, Guster, Grace Potter, Killswitch Engage and Letters to Cleo are among the artists who signed the letter, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Our art is not a commodity to be bought and resold at extreme markups against our wishes,” the artists wrote.

The letter supports the “Great Divide Act” proposed by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, which would generally prohibit concert tickets from being resold for more than 110% of their original price. The proposal would also limit reseller service fees to 10%, prohibit speculative listings for tickets a seller does not possess and target resale websites that mislead consumers about their connection to an artist, venue or official ticket seller.

Those concerns are not difficult to understand. Artists regularly say they hear from angry fans who were unable to buy tickets during an initial sale, only to encounter substantially more expensive listings on secondary marketplaces. Fraudulent listings, deceptive websites and tickets advertised before a seller possesses them are also legitimate consumer-protection problems that have drawn criticism from artists, primary ticketing companies and responsible resale businesses alike.

But the artist letter is not merely a spontaneous appeal from local musicians. It is part of a coordinated lobbying campaign supported by the Music Artists Coalition, an advocacy organization founded by some of the most powerful managers and executives in the music business and closely aligned with the legislative priorities of Live Nation Entertainment.

That industry context is particularly important as supporters attempt to move the proposal without subjecting it to the ordinary public hearing and committee-review process that would typically accompany a significant rewrite of Massachusetts ticketing law.

An Artist Campaign With an Industry Spine

The Music Artists Coalition, or MAC, was formed in 2019 under the leadership of veteran managers Irving Azoff, Coran Capshaw and John Silva. Its current board includes Azoff, Capshaw, Silva and a collection of artists, attorneys, managers and music-business executives.

Azoff previously served as Ticketmaster’s chief executive and as executive chairman of Live Nation Entertainment following the companies’ 2010 merger. He later co-founded Oak View Group, the venue-development and management company that the Justice Department alleged coordinated with Live Nation to avoid competing in portions of the live-entertainment business. Oak View Group has disputed allegations that it acted improperly.

MAC presents itself as an independent voice for artists, and its advocacy extends beyond ticketing. Its participation nevertheless places the Massachusetts letter within a larger campaign involving organizations whose ticketing priorities overlap extensively with those advanced by Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

MAC is a prominent member of Fix the Tix, an industry coalition that has repeatedly urged lawmakers to cap ticket resale prices, restrict ticket transfers, prohibit speculative listings and give artists, venues, promoters and ticketing rights holders greater control over what happens to a ticket after its initial purchase.

While its finances are not transparent, nearly half of MAC’s board members had a direct connection or significant business relationship with Live Nation or one of its affiliated operations. MAC has also promoted polling intended to demonstrate public support for resale caps as similar proposals advance in Congress and state legislatures.

That does not establish that the artists signing the Massachusetts letter are acting on behalf of Live Nation. Many likely have sincere concerns about fans being able to access their performances at reasonable prices, and artists do not necessarily examine the market structure or competitive consequences of every provision contained in legislation they endorse.

Their names and reputations, however, provide an appealing public face for a campaign whose policy architecture was developed and promoted by well-connected industry organizations. The result is a message centered on artists and fans even though the most consequential provisions would determine which businesses may compete to facilitate ticket transfers—and under whose rules.

Stalled Ticket Bill Seeks Late Approval Through Legislative Backdoor

The Massachusetts proposal initially appeared as Sen. Dylan Fernandes’ “An Act to make Noah Kahan tickets affordable for the rest of us,” filed in June as SD.3994.

That standalone measure was referred to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Rules and had received no further recorded action. No public hearing was held at which consumer advocates, resale businesses, season-ticket holders, antitrust specialists or other affected parties could examine its practical consequences.

Healey subsequently announced that she wanted to place substantially similar language into a larger spending package. Fernandes then filed Amendment 20 to S.3178, the Senate’s economic-development legislation.

S.3178 is not the state’s annual operating budget. It is nevertheless a substantial late-session fiscal vehicle authorizing $325.1 million in bond obligations and another $100 million in direct appropriations. Senators filed 596 proposed amendments to the package, which lawmakers are considering shortly before formal sessions are scheduled to conclude July 31.

The ticket amendment could therefore become law as one provision within a sprawling economic-development package rather than through a transparent review of standalone ticketing legislation.

As of 11 a.m. Thursday, July 23, the Legislature’s public docket showed no recorded action on Amendment 20, although that status could change as Senate consideration continues.

Using amendments to advance policy is a routine feature of legislating. But a resale cap is not a minor technical adjustment or an emergency appropriation. It would substantially alter the rights of ticket holders, the obligations of marketplaces and the ability of independent companies to compete with platforms selected by artists, venues and promoters.

Moving such a policy through a major spending bill leaves little opportunity to examine unresolved questions, including how an original ticket price would be verified, whether mandatory primary-market fees would count toward that price, how the rules would apply to season-ticket holders and whether independent marketplaces could practically continue operating under the proposed restrictions.

Resale Price Cap Leaves Primary-Market Pricing Untouched

The most significant limitation of the campaign’s consumer-affordability argument is that its price controls apply downstream, after a ticket has already been sold.

The proposal would not place equivalent restrictions on the initial prices set by artists, promoters, venues or primary ticketing companies. It would not prohibit dynamic pricing, “Official Platinum” tickets, opaque inventory holdbacks, staggered releases or the use of limited availability to create urgency during an initial sale.

Ticketmaster and other primary platforms could therefore continue using market demand to increase initial prices while independent sellers and consumers would be prohibited from receiving more than 10% above the original price during a later transfer.

Healey’s proposal would also allow an artist or venue to authorize a higher resale cap through a written agreement. That exception could give event organizers the ability to approve different resale arrangements for a selected marketplace while competitors remain bound by the statutory limit.

In a market where Live Nation promotes many of the largest tours, operates or books numerous venues and owns Ticketmaster, an approved marketplace will frequently be controlled by or commercially connected to the same companies involved in the original sale.

That disparity is central to the opposition raised by Ticket Policy Forum, a trade association whose members include major online ticket marketplaces such as StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats.

Brian Berry, the organization’s executive director, said the group supports prohibiting deceptive marketing and speculative ticket listings but argues that the Healey proposal directs its price and fee restrictions almost entirely at the secondary market while leaving the dominant primary-ticketing market outside comparable controls.

“Failing to include Ticketmaster’s fees and dynamic and platinum pricing means prices will continue to rise from the largest source of tickets in the state,” Berry said.

Berry also questioned the basis for limiting resale marketplace fees to 10% when the proposal would not impose the same ceiling on fees charged during an original ticket sale. He described the differing treatment as a functional exemption for Ticketmaster, although the legislation does not expressly name or exempt the company. The exemption identified by Berry instead comes from applying the proposed price and fee limits to resale transactions without imposing equivalent restrictions on primary sellers.

Berry tied that criticism to Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s antitrust case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. A federal jury found in April that the companies violated state and federal antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly, with penalties and remedies still to be determined by the court.

“Massachusetts’ Attorney General is helping lead the fight to break this monopoly up, and this bill undercuts that critical work,” Berry said.

The proposal does not explicitly outlaw independent ticket marketplaces. A strict price ceiling, limited fee revenue, verification requirements and exceptions controlled by ticket issuers could nevertheless make lawful independent resale commercially impractical outside artist- or venue-approved channels.

That outcome would represent more than a crackdown on professional brokers charging extreme prices. It could also limit how ordinary fans and season-ticket holders use tickets they legally purchased, reduce competition among marketplaces and steer transactions toward a primary seller’s preferred resale platform.

A fan who purchased an underpriced ticket would be prohibited from receiving its market value later, even when an unexpected conflict prevents attendance. The artist, promoter and primary ticket seller, meanwhile, would remain free to capture that same market value through dynamic pricing at the moment of the original sale.

Supporters argue that this distinction is appropriate because artists and event operators create the performance while resellers contribute nothing to it. Critics counter that ownership and transfer rights do not ordinarily disappear simply because a product has appreciated after its initial purchase—and that restricting those rights can consolidate the control of the companies that dominate the original market.

Artist Support Is Not a Substitute for Scrutiny

The artist letter gives Massachusetts lawmakers evidence that performers are frustrated with extreme resale prices and want greater control over how tickets reach their fans. It does not resolve whether the proposed cap would actually make concerts more affordable, whether it would reduce competition or whether it would merely move more pricing power into the primary market.

Nor does opposition to a resale cap require defending deceptive websites, speculative tickets or fraudulent sellers. Those practices can be prohibited without giving dominant promoters, venues and ticketing companies broader control over every lawful ticket transfer.

The central question is not whether Noah Kahan, Dropkick Murphys or the other signatories are wrong to object to fans paying inflated prices. It is whether their understandable frustration should be used to rush a consequential restructuring of the ticket market through a late-session spending package without a meaningful hearing or public analysis.

At a time when Live Nation and Ticketmaster face continuing antitrust scrutiny over their control of promotion, venues and ticketing, lawmakers should be especially cautious about legislation that could weaken the companies competing with them.

Massachusetts may ultimately decide that a resale price cap is justified. But a policy capable of determining whether independent marketplaces can legally and economically continue operating deserves transparent statutory language, competition analysis and testimony from all affected parties—not simply a collection of recognizable artist names attached to an industry coalition’s preferred solution.