In May 2024, the UK government introduced a legal framework with major implications for the ticketing industry. The “Failure to Prevent Fraud” offence, part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, becomes law in September 2025. Most ticketing companies should review their business practices.
This is more than just regulatory noise. It shifts liability directly onto companies and, crucially, their senior managers. If an employee or associate commits fraud intending to benefit a company, and the company didn’t have “reasonable procedures” in place to stop it, the company is criminally liable. There is no longer a need to prove intent. Gross negligence or wilful blindness is enough.
For an industry long criticised for over-inflated resale prices, obscure allocation practices, questionable provenance and hidden fees, is a legal earthquake coming? What once brought bad press could now bring prosecution.
This is more than just regulatory noise… it shifts liability directly onto companies and, crucially, their senior managers
Ticketing has always straddled a fine line between access and profit. But several longstanding practices now sit in the crosshairs. First, the blurred line between primary sellers and resale. Some platforms have quietly profited from internal resale systems or selective allocations. These may technically be legal, but if consumers are misled about availability, fairness, or price inflation, they could now be seen as victims of fraud. If the company benefits, and failed to prevent it, that’s a corporate crime.
Second, industrial-scale touting on secondary sites. Sellers often list hundreds of tickets in breach of stated official limits. The secondary platforms hosting them should know this and if they profit they risk being complicit. Turning a blind eye is no longer a defence. Executives who fail to implement basic checks could be held personally responsible.
Third, the practice of promoters allocating tickets directly to touts in exchange for payment. This inflates demand, drives scarcity, and boosts future prices. It also deceives the public. Under the new law, it could amount to fraud. And not just for the company, individuals who authorised or ignored it could face prosecution.
Regulators now have sharper tools to pursue wrongdoing—and they won’t need a court order to use them
To stay safe, companies will need to show more than clean hands. They’ll need proof of active prevention: oversight of allocations and resale, enforced purchase limits, transparency in pricing, and board-level awareness of risk. Saying “we didn’t know” won’t be enough if the business benefited.
Some players stand to gain. Consumers should see fairer pricing and better protection. Transparent primary sellers and responsible resale platforms may gain trust and market share. New entrants with clean processes and compliance-first cultures could be welcomed. And regulators now have sharper tools to pursue wrongdoing—and they won’t need a court order to use them. But others are in trouble.
Secondary marketplaces that would appear to facilitate large-scale touting with minimal checks may be exposed. Primary platforms with opaque early access deals or vague resale rules could be targeted. Promoters who rely on behind-the-scenes allocations may discover that plausible deniability is no longer protection. And executives who’ve used strategic ignorance as a shield may find themselves personally liable.
Transparency, accountability, and prevention are no longer aspirational, they are legal imperatives
While the new offence doesn’t kick in until September 2025, momentum is building. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is already active, probing dynamic pricing, investigating hidden fees, and holding platforms to account. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, it can now impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover, without going to court.
Other industries show what’s likely to come. Previous “failure to prevent” laws targeting bribery and tax evasion took time to play out but when they did, enforcement became aggressive. Expect a similar trajectory here: voluntary codes, a few high-profile examples, then systemic enforcement.
And unlike traditional criminal cases, no smoking gun is needed. Regulators don’t have to prove intent or conspiracy. They need only show that a fraud occurred, such as misrepresenting ticket availability or price, someone senior was involved or negligent, and that reasonable safeguards were not in place.
The new laws reflect a broader trend: governments pushing businesses to take responsibility for protecting consumers. This is no longer just about bad actors or corner cases. It’s about systemic expectations.
For the ticketing industry, the message is clear. Transparency, accountability, and prevention are no longer aspirational, they are legal imperatives. The window for reform is closing fast. Because in this new environment, doing nothing isn’t just risky. It might be criminal.
Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.
UK Corporate Criminal Liability: What it means for ticketing
Total Ticketing's Martin Haigh explains the new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence and the major implications it has for the ticketing industry
27 Jun 2025
In May 2024, the UK government introduced a legal framework with major implications for the ticketing industry. The “Failure to Prevent Fraud” offence, part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, becomes law in September 2025. Most ticketing companies should review their business practices.
This is more than just regulatory noise. It shifts liability directly onto companies and, crucially, their senior managers. If an employee or associate commits fraud intending to benefit a company, and the company didn’t have “reasonable procedures” in place to stop it, the company is criminally liable. There is no longer a need to prove intent. Gross negligence or wilful blindness is enough.
For an industry long criticised for over-inflated resale prices, obscure allocation practices, questionable provenance and hidden fees, is a legal earthquake coming? What once brought bad press could now bring prosecution.
Ticketing has always straddled a fine line between access and profit. But several longstanding practices now sit in the crosshairs. First, the blurred line between primary sellers and resale. Some platforms have quietly profited from internal resale systems or selective allocations. These may technically be legal, but if consumers are misled about availability, fairness, or price inflation, they could now be seen as victims of fraud. If the company benefits, and failed to prevent it, that’s a corporate crime.
Second, industrial-scale touting on secondary sites. Sellers often list hundreds of tickets in breach of stated official limits. The secondary platforms hosting them should know this and if they profit they risk being complicit. Turning a blind eye is no longer a defence. Executives who fail to implement basic checks could be held personally responsible.
Third, the practice of promoters allocating tickets directly to touts in exchange for payment. This inflates demand, drives scarcity, and boosts future prices. It also deceives the public. Under the new law, it could amount to fraud. And not just for the company, individuals who authorised or ignored it could face prosecution.
To stay safe, companies will need to show more than clean hands. They’ll need proof of active prevention: oversight of allocations and resale, enforced purchase limits, transparency in pricing, and board-level awareness of risk. Saying “we didn’t know” won’t be enough if the business benefited.
Some players stand to gain. Consumers should see fairer pricing and better protection. Transparent primary sellers and responsible resale platforms may gain trust and market share. New entrants with clean processes and compliance-first cultures could be welcomed. And regulators now have sharper tools to pursue wrongdoing—and they won’t need a court order to use them. But others are in trouble.
Secondary marketplaces that would appear to facilitate large-scale touting with minimal checks may be exposed. Primary platforms with opaque early access deals or vague resale rules could be targeted. Promoters who rely on behind-the-scenes allocations may discover that plausible deniability is no longer protection. And executives who’ve used strategic ignorance as a shield may find themselves personally liable.
While the new offence doesn’t kick in until September 2025, momentum is building. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is already active, probing dynamic pricing, investigating hidden fees, and holding platforms to account. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, it can now impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover, without going to court.
Other industries show what’s likely to come. Previous “failure to prevent” laws targeting bribery and tax evasion took time to play out but when they did, enforcement became aggressive. Expect a similar trajectory here: voluntary codes, a few high-profile examples, then systemic enforcement.
And unlike traditional criminal cases, no smoking gun is needed. Regulators don’t have to prove intent or conspiracy. They need only show that a fraud occurred, such as misrepresenting ticket availability or price, someone senior was involved or negligent, and that reasonable safeguards were not in place.
The new laws reflect a broader trend: governments pushing businesses to take responsibility for protecting consumers. This is no longer just about bad actors or corner cases. It’s about systemic expectations.
For the ticketing industry, the message is clear. Transparency, accountability, and prevention are no longer aspirational, they are legal imperatives. The window for reform is closing fast. Because in this new environment, doing nothing isn’t just risky. It might be criminal.
Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.