The UK's ticket tout ban, explained: a face-value resale cap, and what the Oasis sale changed

On 9 September the Commons held a short adjournment debate on ticket prices. Rupa Huq MP pointed out that, two years after Labour's manifesto promise to stop touting, nothing is law yet. The minister, Ian Murray, said the draft bill should come "imminently" and the full bill would follow "when parliamentary time allows". As of 23 October we could not find a published draft, so treat everything below as stated policy, not law.

What would the Ticket Tout Ban Bill do?

The King's Speech briefing notes (13 May 2026) say the bill will be published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny and will:

• make it illegal to resell a live-event ticket for more than its original cost;
• cap the service fees resale platforms charge;
• make it illegal to resell more tickets than you were originally entitled to buy;
• put "strict obligations" on resale platforms to enforce the rules;
• let the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fine breaches up to 10% of global turnover.

The government's consultation response (November 2025) fills in the detail. There is no mark-up allowance at all. "Original cost" includes unavoidable fees and delivery charges, using the "total price" definition in the 2024 consumer law (DMCCA). Optional extras, such as pre-ordered food, don't count. The fee cap level is not set yet: the government says it is still gathering evidence. The quantity limit binds sellers, but platforms won't be required to police it. Charity resales and debentures (Wimbledon's scheme is the example given) would be exempt, and only if the event organiser authorises them. A licensing regime for resellers was dropped "at this time".

The government's own figures: resale tickets about £37 cheaper on average, £112 million a year saved by fans, and 900,000 more tickets a year bought from primary sellers. It also cites CMA analysis that typical secondary mark-ups are above 50%. These are estimates from the department proposing the law, not outcomes.

One correction to how this is often reported: the "draft bill" is still a description in a briefing note. The fee cap number, the platform duties and the definition of "original ticket price" will only be known when the text appears. That last one matters for tiered tickets and hospitality bundles, as Slaughter and May notes.

A worked example

The numbers here are made up for illustration. A fan buys a standing ticket at £80 plus a £12 per-ticket service fee and a £3 delivery charge split across a two-ticket order (£1.50 a ticket). Under the planned rules the most they could resell it for is £93.50. A pre-ordered drinks voucher wouldn't be added to the cap. The platform's fee to the buyer would sit on top, but under a separate cap. If the artist's sale limited each buyer to four tickets, a fifth ticket resold by the same person would break the law whatever the price.

What did Oasis change?

The 2024 Oasis sale is the case everyone cites. The CMA investigated and in September 2025 said it had not found evidence that Ticketmaster used dynamic pricing. What it did find was tiered pricing that wasn't explained well: standing tickets sold at two prices, and some "platinum" tickets sold for almost 2.5 times the standard price without making clear they offered nothing extra over some standard tickets in the same area. Ticketmaster's undertakings:

• tell fans at least 24 hours before a sale if tiered pricing will be used;
• show the price range when fans join the queue, and update it promptly when cheaper tickets sell out;
• stop using misleading ticket labels;
• send the CMA regular reports for two years.

The CMA's new power to fine up to 10% of turnover does not apply retrospectively, so it couldn't be used for the 2024 sale. It applies now. In June 2026 the CMA fined StubHub UK £889,200 and ordered more than £590,000 in refunds to 51,350 customers, for adding mandatory fees late in checkout.

Dynamic pricing stays legal

The call-for-evidence response is plain about this. Businesses can use any pricing strategy as long as the price information is clear and accurate, and the government sees no need for new pricing law. The minister said the same on 9 September. The same response records that fees could add 20 to 40% to the advertised "from" price, and the DMCCA's drip-pricing rules now cover that.

What artists can control today

You don't have to wait for the bill. Questions for your manager, agent and promoter before tickets go on sale:

• Resale terms in the original sale. Under section 91 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, an organiser can cancel a resold ticket, or blacklist the seller, only if the buyer's original contract allowed it and the term isn't unfair. If a no-resale or face-value-only rule isn't in the terms at purchase, it can't be enforced later.
• A face-value exchange. Give fans a legal way to pass on a ticket at cost, so touts aren't the only option. In the debate, Huq described Twickets as capping resale at face value and named Ed Sheeran and Adele among its partners.
• Per-buyer limits. Once the bill passes, the primary limit becomes the legal resale limit (see the worked example), so it's worth setting deliberately.
• Tiered pricing. If you use it, insist on the Ticketmaster-style disclosure everywhere: notice before the sale and price ranges in the queue. Ticket labels should describe real differences.
• Fee transparency. Ask for an all-in price at the first screen. Section 90 already requires resale listings to show face value.

What we think

The face-value cap is good for artists. Today the mark-up between the artist's price and the fan's price goes to people who add nothing. Make that mark-up illegal and the main reason to run bots disappears, and with it some of the pressure on artists to raise face value "because touts will anyway".

But this is slow, and sport is moving faster. The King's Speech put touting for major sporting events into the Sporting Events Bill, a full bill with a new UK-wide offence. Music and theatre get a draft that still has to go through committee scrutiny. In the debate Huq predicted it will take until 2028, and said another summer festival season had already been missed.

Winners: fans, independent artists who price low on purpose, and face-value exchanges. Losers: large-scale touts (the government estimates the 200 biggest resellers account for about half of secondary sales by value) and platforms whose business is commission on mark-ups. The quieter question is who controls the remaining margin. With resale capped and dynamic and tiered pricing still legal, money that went to touts may move into primary pricing tiers. Whether that reaches artists or stays with promoters and ticketing companies depends on contracts, not on this bill. That's where artists should be asking questions now.