Freedom Line Blog

A summer whose entertainment headlines were dominated by Taylor Swift and her blowout concert tour just came to an end.  Unsurprisingly, a significant number of those headlines centered upon the ongoing public policy debate over the consumer ticket purchase experience, along with varying and differing calls for reform.

Unfortunately, some of that discussion served to introduce terribly ill-advised proposals that would only make the industry and American consumers’ enjoyment of it far worse.

To be sure, the genesis of the problem underlying various reform proposals is the issue of predatory ticket resellers who engage in harmful practices that hurt fans as well as the artists themselves.  As just one illustration, resale ticket prices at StubHub alone have increased over 100% since as recently as 2019, even while the face value of the tickets being resold have increased only 10%.  No wonder consumers desire reform.

Currently, a complex patchwork of state laws govern the industry, which logically invites Congress to streamline consumer protections while still protecting artists’ underlying rights by prohibiting predatory resellers, ticket brokers and ticketing platforms from disregarding the negotiated contractual terms and conditions between artists and venues in which they perform.  Such federal-level reform should include limitations on price-gougers who seek to resell tickets above their face value.

Unfortunately, some Congressional proposals would make today’s problems infinitely worse.

As an especially egregious example, the “BOSS Act” would impose a Biden Administration-style, heavy-handed, big-government regime that would simply empower federal bureaucrats.  Americans struggling under deepening economic and governmental dysfunction due to Biden Administration policies hardly need instruction on how that’s an unsettling idea.

Specifically, the BOSS Act would empower the rogue Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under activist chair Lina Khan would be granted unprecedented authority to micromanage the ticketing market, set prices despite its lack of expertise or skin in the game, substitute its authority for the freely negotiated agreements for events between artists and other parties, impose ticket inventory rules, dictate timelines and inhibit artists’ ability to keep ticket prices affordable for their actual fans over wealthy corporate purchasers.  Meanwhile, the BOSS Act would do nothing to stop websites from duping fans into believing that they’re officially affiliated with the concert venue or sports teams, nor would it prevent shady sellers from offering tickets they don’t even possess yet.

If nothing else, the FTC’s recent record of successive and embarrassing courtroom defeats for its overreach and extra-legal activities should inform American how bad an idea it would be to suddenly give it free reign to govern the market.

What’s more, the free market has already been coming up with solutions to the longstanding concerns over the ticket purchase experience.  For instance, entertainment promotion and ticket company Live Nation in recent months unveiled an “all-in pricing” idea that took effect this month.  Under that voluntary reform, all-in pricing allows fans to see up-front the full price of tickets, including fees.  That matters, because knowing the total cost of tickets from the beginning makes purchase easier and more in line with other types of online shopping.

Congress, however, can still play a helpful role beyond those free market improvements.  Better enforcement of the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, for instance, would guarantee that real, actual fans, rather than “bots” used by predatory resellers, gain first opportunity to purchase tickets to performances.

What’s critical is that any Congressional reform must protect artists’ ability to choose how tickets to their own performances are sold, which in turn helps guarantee that their fans get to actually see their favorite artists perform.  The BOSS Act fails in that regard, whereas market forces and the BOTS Act offer improvement.

In our latest Liberty Update we highlight how replacing Joe Biden atop the Democrats’ 2024 ticket wouldn’t substantively change the left’s “Bidenomics” economic agenda that is the main voter concern driving his unpopularity.  In noting Biden’s strange and stubborn habit of whispering into the microphone that “It’s working” when promoting that failing agenda, we noted that poverty just surged at a record rate last year, according to the federal government itself.  From our friend Stephen Moore, here’s a helpful visual placing it in stark relief:

Bidenomics Is “Working?”

In recent days, we at CFIF have marked the ignominious one-year anniversary of the Biden Administration’s misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA) by noting its particularly negative impact on pharmaceutical innovation and, in turn, the nation’s health and wellbeing.

As acknowledged by the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security  as well as groups like the American Cancer Society, Americans are already confronting alarming and unprecedented drug shortages in the wake of the IRA.

To mark today’s date of September 13 – or 9/13 – it’s appropriate to note a different but significant 9-13:  That refers to the indefensible distinction that the IRA makes between what are known as “small-molecule” and “large-molecule” drugs.

Specifically, the IRA imposes destructive price controls on small-molecule drugs merely 9 years following Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, while waiting 13 years to impose those price controls on large-molecule drugs.  Although price controls of any duration and of any type only serve to create shortages and discourage innovation, that baseless disparity in the IRA needlessly discourages investment in small-molecule pharmaceuticals.

As cogently stated by leading scientific and medical expert Daniel Skovronsky in STATReports, it’s imperative that Congress correct that unjustifiable 9-13 distinction:

[T]o researchers like me, a provision in the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act is puzzling.  For no clear reason, it draws a distinction between large and small molecule medicines.  As part of the IRA’s Medicare price control provisions, price negotiation for small molecule medicines is allowed nine years after Food and Drug Administration approval compared with 13 years for large molecule biologics.  There is no scientific reason for this distinction, and it will have a real and detrimental impact on drug discovery and patient care.  Nine years is not enough time to recoup the deep investments into small molecule R&D before government price controls take effect.  As a result, companies will deprioritize small molecule programs, lowering the potential to create drugs using these technologies.  Congress should correct this imbalance by allowing negotiation after a full 13 years for both small-molecule medicines and their large-molecule counterparts.”

There’s simply no sound basis for that 9-13 small-molecule/large-molecule differential, and on 9/13 we urge Congress to correct this error.

Joe Biden carelessly and repeatedly labels himself “the most pro-union president in history.”  Well, this snapshot of public opinion illustrates his tone-deafness on the issue, and might also offer insight for those who can’t fathom why he remains so wildly unpopular.  Namely, an overwhelming share of Americans consider unions a negative force in the private sector, not a positive one:

Americans Consider Unions a Negative Force

In an increasingly digital world marked by sharp partisan division, one thing that claims nearly universal agreement is the need to protect personal data against the threat of massive government overreach. 

To illustrate, an overwhelming majority of Americans (84%) said in a recent poll that they are at least somewhat concerned about the safety and privacy of the personal data that they provide on the internet. 

Contravening that near-universal public concern, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners is inexplicably considering a dangerous new ordinance that would erode Miami consumers’ privacy rights by forcing popular third-party food delivery platforms like DoorDash or UberEats to share sensitive data about consumers to other parties. 

Supporters of the proposed ordinance attempt to rationalize it under the guise of supporting local restaurants, which might superficially appear to be a worthy goal.  The truth, however, is entirely different. 

Under the proposed ordinance, consumers would have their privacy routinely violated every time they order, with third-party food delivery platforms forced to disclose customers’ full names, contact information, and other identifying data to restaurants — putting customer data at significantly greater risk of being misused or hacked. 

Making matters worse, that regulatory overreach would also suppress any hope of recourse for consumers.  Even if they choose to delete their accounts from the third-party delivery platforms targeted by the proposed new ordinance, that personal information would remain vulnerable to being exposed or sold. 

Privacy concerns at the center of this proposed ordinance continue to mount as more Americans experience data breaches and discomfort over how their information is collected and used.  If passed, this ordinance would strike yet another blow against individuals’ privacy at a time when regulatory creep continues to infringe upon the rights of everyday consumers. 

For that reason, more sensible data privacy policies must prevail in Miami-Dade County, and we urge them to keep consumers in control of their personal information rather than opening the door to unprecedented and intrusive abuses of their privacy.