The internet has made event ticket purchasing more convenient, but consumers are also getting “ripped off,” said House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Wednesday. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette, D-Colo., whose panel held the hearing, cited GAO findings on difficulty buying tickets at face value because of hidden fees, a lack of transparency and misleading marketing. Consumers should be able to know whether a ticket is “dynamically priced,” and transfer limitations should be clearly disclosed, said committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore. Subcommittee ranking member Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., considered an inability to see the total cost as a “minor inconvenience.” He raised larger issues like white label websites designed to fool consumers into thinking they're buying tickets directly from venues or artists. Ticketmaster, AXS and Vivid Seats officials testified their companies support all-in ticket pricing, so consumers know upfront what they're paying. StubHub General Counsel Stephanie Burns accused Ticketmaster of using its dominance to disable transferability and using consumer data to force purchases through its platform. StubHub believes consumers should have the option to buy transferable tickets at the initial point of sale, said Burns. Ticketmaster supports all-in pricing, bans speculative ticketing, reports deceptive websites and combat bots, said President Amy Howe. AXS supports all-in pricing, as long as it's applied equally to all sellers, said CEO Bryan Perez. Vivid Seats supports upfront, all-in ticket pricing on a level playing field, testified Vice President Ryan Fitts. Ancillary fees based on consumer purchase choices make it impossible to provide entirely all-in ticket pricing upfront, testified Tickets.com CEO Joe Choti.
Karl Herchenroeder
Karl Herchenroeder, Associate Editor, is a technology policy journalist for publications including Communications Daily. Born in Rockville, Maryland, he joined the Warren Communications News staff in 2018. He began his journalism career in 2012 at the Aspen Times in Aspen, Colorado, where he covered city government. After that, he covered the nuclear industry for ExchangeMonitor in Washington. You can follow Herchenroeder on Twitter: @karlherk
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told us Tuesday his “understanding” is NSA won’t request funding for its call detail records program in its upcoming budget request (see 2002240046). “There’s a big question mark whether it continues to be a useful program,” he said of the USA Freedom Act Section 215 CDR program. “I think that’s likely, but I have not heard the depth of” NSA’s budget request, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told us. NSA declined comment. Attorney General William Barr attended a Senate Republicans lunch Tuesday to discuss FISA revisions. He reportedly urged extension of other Section 215 surveillance authorities. “I’ve listened to the experts, and they indicate, as currently constituted, [the program is] not particularly useful,” Cornyn told us. “At least, the benefit doesn’t outweigh the cost." The House Judiciary Committee will mark up legislation Wednesday that would end the CDR program. Markup is 2:30 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act remains a vital tool for allowing innovation and startups to grow, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told reporters Tuesday, the day after another legislator threatened the tech industry’s liability shield with a legislative proposal (see 2002240051). “It’s just as important now as it was then, and the big guys are always ... looking to have more tools to dominate the little guys,” said Wyden, an author of Section 230. “Our constituency was always for the disruptor, the innovator, the person who is willing to take on the powerful and entrenched interests.”
Platforms should take on more civil liability for terror- and murder-related content, advocates said in interviews two days after Attorney General Bill Barr said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act potentially blocks victims from seeking civil recovery (see 2002190056). The topic is gaining steam on Capitol Hill (see 2001280059).
Google's "verbatim copying” of Oracle computer code into a “competing commercial product” wasn’t fair use, the Trump administration said in a Supreme Court filing Wednesday (see 2002190058). Also siding with Oracle in separate filings were USTelecom, the Motion Picture Association, the RIAA, the National Music Publishers' Association and the Copyright Alliance.
YouTube illegally deceives users by “allowing violent murder videos” to spread in violation of its terms of service, gun safety advocate Andy Parker alleged in an FTC complaint Thursday. The agency confirmed it received the complaint, and Google defended its “vigilant” policy enforcement record against such content. Google’s “reprehensible and ongoing failure” to remove these monetized videos from YouTube is illegal under the FTC Act, which polices unfair and deceptive practices, Parker said at the National Press Club. Parker’s complaint stems from a video of his 24-year-old daughter, a reporter who was assassinated on live TV in 2015 (see 2002030059). He told us he’s also floating legislative proposals to the offices of Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Virginia Democrats. He planned to meet with their offices after the news conference to discuss proposals that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to address “targeted harassment, hate speech and murder videos.” Google’s Community Guidelines are “designed to protect the YouTube community, including those affected by tragedies,” a spokesperson said. Policies prohibit such videos, and the platform has removed thousands of copies of the video for violating policies, the spokesperson said: “We will continue to stay vigilant and improve our policy enforcement.” Georgetown University Law Center's Civil Rights Clinic helped Parker file the complaint. A separate Georgetown clinic filed a 2018 complaint against Google involving child-directed content. That proceeding resulted in a $170 million fine against Google from the FTC and the Office of the New York Attorney General (see 1909040066). Offices for Kaine and Warner didn't comment.
DOJ is considering whether Section 230 creates the right incentives for platforms to maintain a safe internet, said Attorney General William Barr Wednesday. Tech companies are no longer underdog upstarts but titans of U.S. industry, he said during a workshop on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: “Given this changing technological landscape, valid questions have been raised on whether Section 230’s broad immunity is still necessary, at least in its current form.”
SAN FRANCISCO -- Observers are split on whether the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will side with the FTC or Qualcomm in a key tech antitrust decision expected in the coming months (see 2002130058). Qualcomm, Intel, Ericsson and Samsung didn’t comment Friday, after the previous day's oral argument. We interviewed experts following oral argument.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned during oral argument Thursday whether antitrust law, not patent law, is best to address Qualcomm’s potential violations related to chip licensing (see 2002120059). One judge appeared to dismiss DOJ’s argument that FTC antitrust enforcement against Qualcomm would threaten national security.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Government and Qualcomm officials will argue Thursday in federal court in a case with implications for 5G technology, FTC antitrust authority and the tech industry (see 1910100017). Qualcomm said the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit threatens national security because of the impact on U.S. companies competing with China for 5G technology dominance. DOJ sided with Qualcomm, while rival Intel and automakers backed the commission (see 1912020029).