The commitments that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) declared binding on Ticketmaster expire on 20 December 2026. The decision itself, dated 20 December 2024, sets the term: two years from its entry into force. A little over ten weeks remain.
What the ACM declared binding
The commitments decision — case file ACM/24/188441 — was issued under Article 12h of the Instellingswet Autoriteit Consument en Markt, the law governing the regulator, which allows it to declare binding the commitments a company proposes.
At issue is the resale of tickets that Ticketmaster sells in the primary market: the ACM feared its terms would limit competition between resale platforms. The central commitment is to keep the *transferfunctionaliteit* — the function that lets a ticket be digitally transferred to another user, making it possible to resell it on a third-party platform — free of charge.
The package also includes giving two months' notice of substantial technical changes, a ban on reversing — unless the ACM authorises it — the changes Ticketmaster made to its terms and resale policy after 26 June 2023, and periodic reporting to the regulator on who requests that the transfer function be disabled.
Ticketmaster set the deadline
Clause 12 sets entry into force at the moment the ACM adopts the decision. Clause 13 adds the duration: two years, unless the ACM decides that all or part of the commitments are no longer necessary — because of technological or market developments, for example. Paragraph 2 gives the date: binding up to and including 20 December 2026.
The regulator did not propose those two years. According to paragraph 151 of the decision's PDF, it was Ticketmaster that set the duration at two years from the declaration of bindingness.
Rivals already raised the alarm
TicketSwap and Viagogo argued that the term was too short and that the effectiveness of the commitments could not be adequately monitored or demonstrated. TicketSwap added that its considerable investment in selling Ticketmaster's mobile tickets would not be recouped within that period. Viagogo asked what would happen if Ticketmaster reversed its changes once the term expired.
The ACM replied that the investment decision was made in early 2024, independently of the commitments, which only guarantee free access for as long as they remain in force.
On what happens afterwards, paragraph 153 is worth reading in full: the ACM sees no indication that Ticketmaster will withdraw the function — it is already used to resell on third-party platforms, and friends and family also use it to transfer tickets to one another — which is not the same as saying it cannot disappear. If it did, the competition risks set out in chapter 5 would resurface, and the ACM could step in.
The only firm commitment is a review: paragraph 154 reasons that, since ticketing is a moving target, two years allow market developments to be examined before the term expires. On 6 March 2026, the Rechtbank Rotterdam dismissed in full TicketSwap's appeal against the decision; an appeal to the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven remains possible. The ruling upheld the instrument itself, not its expiry date.
For anyone selling tickets in the Netherlands — where the online payments lane is also changing — the difference is one of kind: UOKiK in Poland wrote the rules and fined; the ACM accepted commitments with an expiry date. Anyone relying on a third party's function to control the secondary market would do well to review how resale is controlled from the primary market.