Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing for Oasis’ 2025 reunion tour has hit fans hard in the wallet - but is it legal? 

In this article we discuss when dynamic pricing models may raise issues under New Zealand’s Fair Trading Act 1986^[1], as well as the allegations against Ticketmaster’s parent company, Live Nation in the US, which is already under the microscope for alleged abuses of market power. The Oasis tour has brought these issues back into the public eye.

Background

Britpop fans were overjoyed with the announcement that Liam and Noel Gallagher have overcome their longstanding differences and are reforming Oasis for a reunion tour in 2025.

For many fans however, this excitement was short lived. Having made it through the waitlist for tickets, often waiting several hours, fans were faced with significantly higher ticket prices than expected. While general admission standing tickets had been advertised at a price of £135 (plus fees), the same tickets were then only available for more than £300 due to being “in-demand”. The most expensive tickets advertised before sales went live were £250 (plus fees) for a “Premium Seat Package”.

The unexpected increase in prices was the result of Ticketmaster, which is running ticket sales for the tour, using a pricing model known as dynamic pricing. A dynamic pricing model continuously adjusts prices based on demand, which allows sellers to charge higher prices where there is increased demand (essentially adding a surcharge to the base price).

Regulators in both the UK and Europe have said they are investigating Ticketmaster for potential breaches of consumer laws, as this was not clearly advertised to customers when ticket prices were announced. 

Dynamic Pricing and the Fair Trading Act 

The Fair Trading Act prohibits any conduct that is “misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive”, as well as prohibiting “false or misleading representations with respect to the price of any goods or services”.

The New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC), which enforces the Fair Trading Act, provides guidance for consumers on pricing. It notes that what a customer is told the price will be (ie the advertised price) should be the price that the customer is charged. If a customer is charged a higher price without notice, the advertised price could be interpreted as a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of the goods or services.

Dynamic pricing models have become increasingly common in recent years and are not illegal in New Zealand - as increasing price where there is high demand does not necessarily constitute a breach of the Fair Trading Act. However, issues may arise if the use of a dynamic pricing model has not been clearly communicated to consumers, giving rise to a lack of clarity around the potential prices consumers may have to pay relative to the initial advertised price. Those issues may be exacerbated where strong demand is highly likely, to the extent it would almost certainly result in customers only having access to prices far above what is initially advertised to them.

In the case of Oasis tickets, Ticketmaster had not advertised that dynamic pricing would apply to ticket sales, with only a single price announced for each ticket type. We will therefore be closely following the UK and European regulators’ investigations, given that the outcome of these may have implications on the use of dynamic pricing models in New Zealand moving forward.

Allegations against Live Nation in the United States

As noted above, Ticketmaster’s parent company Live Nation is currently facing a lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice and 30 state and district attorneys regarding alleged abuse of market power with anticompetitive effects in the entertainment industry.

Live Nation is a global entertainment company that, in addition to operating Ticketmaster (which it acquired in 2010), organises and operates live entertainment events, as well as assisting with promotion of musicians, around the world. 

The allegations against Live Nation include (but are not limited to) alleged use of restrictions in agreements with venues, whereby venues are only able to hold events using Live Nation (and Ticketmaster) services, restricting artists’ access to venues owned by Live Nation unless they agree to use the full suite of Live Nation services, and acquiring small regional competitors that it had identified as potential future threats. The result of this conduct, according to the Department of Justice is that “fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services”.

In New Zealand, if similar issues were to arise here, the Commerce Act prohibits persons with a “substantial degree of market power” from engaging in conduct with the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a New Zealand market. Firms with substantial market power are not prohibited from out-competing competitors through methods such as offering better products, lower prices or efficiency, but must ensure they do not employ anticompetitive tactics. 

There is also a general prohibition on contracts or arrangements with the purpose or (likely) effect of substantially lessening competition in a New Zealand market.

As with the UK and European regulators’ investigations into Ticketmaster’s ticket sales for the Oasis tour, we will be closely following the lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice (and others) against Live Nation in order to assess the implications for New Zealand.

Special thanks to Henry King and Tawhiwhi Watson for their assistance in preparing this article.