Four resale platforms have sued the District of Columbia to block its new resale law from taking effect. The rule caps the resale price of a ticket at the original ticket's total price plus 10%, with its obligations enforceable from 1 January 2027.
What happened
The rule is D.C. Law 26-181, the "Restricting Egregious Scalping Against Live Entertainment (RESALE) Amendment Act of 2026". It had its first reading before the Council of the District of Columbia on 30 June 2026, a second on 14 July, and was signed on 10 August as Act 26-410. It took effect on 25 September 2026, with obligations enforceable from 1 January 2027.
There are five main provisions. A reseller cannot exceed the original ticket's total price plus 10% of that amount. The marketplace cannot charge fees above 10% of that same price. The total price, broken down by fees and taxes, must be shown before final purchase. Speculative ticket listings are banned: a reseller cannot list a ticket they don't have in actual or constructive possession at the time of posting. And anyone listing 50 or more tickets a year must register and post a $25,000 bond. Breaches count as a class 2 civil infraction and an unlawful trade practice, and the relevant department can suspend or revoke a licence.
On 14 October 2026, Ticket Policy Forum and its member companies SeatGeek, Vivid Seats, Gametime and TickPick sued the District in the federal court for the District of Columbia and sought a preliminary injunction. They raise four claims: a dormant Commerce Clause violation, since the law would regulate commerce beyond the District's borders; a breach of the Home Rule Act; a due process violation, over arbitrary and confiscatory price caps; and a First Amendment violation, for forcing them to disclose pricing information they say they cannot verify. In the plaintiffs' statement, chief executive Brian Berry argues that "in the name of affordability, the District has passed a law that will push ticket sales into the shadows and expose fans to greater risk."
Pollstar reported on the lawsuit on 15 October, citing the same arguments, including the claimed impossibility of determining the original face value. There, councilmember Charles Allen, the law's sponsor, responds that the companies "are fleecing D.C. residents" with "a scam that has been extremely lucrative for them for years" and that "with my law, that show is over."
Why it matters
The sticking point is the basis for calculation. Both caps are measured against "the original ticket's total price". That figure is set by whoever sold first, not by the secondary seller, and the platforms' central argument is that they have no way of knowing it.
There's a consequence the law doesn't spell out. A cap tied to the original price is only enforceable if the face value travels with the ticket, ticket by ticket. It's framed as a limit on the secondary market, but it depends on the primary seller disclosing a figure that isn't always disclosed today. A resale cap ends up being a data requirement for the primary sales system.
It's a thread running through other cases too: California legislated on speculative ticket sales, the FTC's case against Ticketmaster over the BOTS Act moves forward, and the DOJ's settlement with Live Nation imposes obligations on marketplaces.
For now, there's no court ruling. The injunction has been requested, not decided.