Sen. Luján Unveils NIVA-Backed GHOST Act Targeting Speculative Ticket Sales

U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján is promoting new federal legislation aimed at “ghost” or speculative ticket listings, pitching the proposal as a consumer-protection measure designed to prevent fans from purchasing tickets that resellers do not actually have.

The New Mexico Democrat highlighted the Guaranteeing Honest Ownership in Secondary Ticketing Act, or GHOST Act, during a ticketing roundtable Monday at a NIVA-affiliated venue in Taos. Luján’s office said the discussion included nonprofit promoters, small venue leaders, artists and community members focused on problems facing consumers, performers and venues in the ticketing marketplace.

The legislation itself was introduced August 6 and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

“Too often, fans are misled into purchasing tickets from resellers who don’t even have them,” Luján said in a relase announcing the Taos event. He said the proposal is intended to ensure consumers purchasing a ticket know that it “actually exists.”

Under the GHOST Act, a reseller could not sell, offer for sale or advertise an event ticket without having what the bill defines as “actual possession.” Violations would be treated as unfair or deceptive practices enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission, while state attorneys general and other authorized state consumer-protection officials would also be able to pursue enforcement.

The proposal calls for substantial penalties, including at least $15,000 for each day a violation occurs, along with an additional penalty of at least $1,000 per affected ticket or five times the total ticket price, whichever is greater. Intentional violations could bring another penalty of at least $10,000 per ticket.

Luján’s office said the legislation is supported by the National Independent Venue Association, which issued its own September 2 press release backing the legislation.

On its face, the objective addresses a well-publicised problem in ticket resale: listings for tickets that a seller does not possess and may ultimately be unable to acquire, potentially leaving a purchaser without admission as an event approaches.

But the language Luján has proposed reaches considerably further than simply prohibiting deceptive listings for tickets that may not exist.

GHOST Act Makes Actual Possession the Line for Legal Resale

The key distinction is contained in just a few lines of the bill.

GHOST defines “actual possession” as “physical or virtual possession of an event ticket issued by a ticket issuer.” It then makes it unlawful for a reseller to sell, offer or advertise a ticket without satisfying that requirement.

There is no alternative in the bill for a person who has already bought and fully paid for a ticket, received confirmation of the transaction and holds an enforceable right to its eventual delivery.

That could have significant consequences in a ticketing business where purchase and delivery are frequently separate events.

Tickets purchased months in advance are not always immediately delivered to consumers. Rights holders, teams, venues and primary ticketing companies can employ delayed-delivery policies that keep transferable digital tickets or usable barcodes out of buyers’ accounts until considerably closer to an event – sometimes hours before doors open.

As written, GHOST appears to make the primary issuer’s delivery of the ticket the trigger for when its owner may legally offer it for resale.

A fan who paid for a ticket but subsequently discovered a scheduling conflict could therefore be unable to list it while awaiting digital delivery. The same issue could arise for some season-ticket holders or other customers with established contractual rights to seats that have not yet been issued electronically.

The restriction is particularly significant because it applies to advertising and offering a ticket for sale, not merely to taking a buyer’s money and then failing to deliver.

That is a much broader proposition than prohibiting a reseller from falsely representing that an uncertain or nonexistent ticket is already secured.

TicketNews asked Luján’s office how the legislation is intended to treat consumers who have fully paid for tickets and possess an enforceable right to receive them but are still awaiting delivery. The senator’s office was also asked whether rights holders could effectively determine when lawful resale begins by controlling ticket-delivery schedules and whether an ordinary fan occasionally selling an unwanted ticket would fall within the bill’s definition of a reseller.

No response had been received as of publication. TicketNews will update this story if one is provided.

California Debate Offers a Striking Comparison

The breadth of the federal proposal stands out even more when compared with a speculative-ticket fight that has just concluded in California.

California Assembly Bill 1349 began as part of a ticketing package backed by NIVA and Live Nation Entertainment and initially drew significant opposition from consumer and competition groups in addition to ticket resale marketplaces.

The introduced version of AB 1349 was itself restrictive. It would have required a reseller, before listing a ticket, to own or possess it or have a specified contractual agreement permitting its sale. It also removed an existing California provision that had allowed certain disclosed transactions in which a ticket seller did not yet possess the ticket.

But even that original proposal did not establish the actual physical or virtual delivery of an issued ticket as the only permissible basis for listing one.

The California bill was subsequently amended to expressly recognize “constructive possession.”

By May 2025, AB 1349 defined constructive possession to include circumstances in which a person had fully paid for a ticket, held a legally enforceable right to receive it and had confirmation of the purchase or assignment.

Later Senate amendments further recast the legislation around a defined “speculative ticket sale.” The version ultimately approved by California lawmakers allows a seller to list when the seller has actual or constructive possession or authorization from the event presenter or venue operator.

That distinction preserves a prohibition against someone simply advertising inventory they do not have while recognizing that ownership rights can exist before a primary ticketing system chooses to deliver the underlying digital ticket.

The California amendments also changed the political alignment around AB 1349.

Consumer and resale groups that opposed earlier versions eventually backed the rewritten legislation after its provisions were narrowed. NIVA moved in the opposite direction, ultimately launching an effort at the last minute to defeat a bill the organization had earlier said it was “proud to help architect.”

AB 1349 nevertheless cleared the Legislature August 31 and is now headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The comparison leaves the federal GHOST Act beginning from an unusually restrictive position. California lawmakers spent months working through where a prohibition on genuinely speculative ticketing should end and a consumer’s established ownership or contractual rights should begin. GHOST, as introduced, does not make that distinction.

NIVA Supports GHOST, Drafting Questions Remain

The contrast is also notable because NIVA is publicly supporting the federal proposal immediately after abandoning the substantially amended California measure.

TicketNews asked NIVA whether it participated in drafting or reviewing the GHOST Act and why the organization supports an actual-possession-only standard rather than one recognizing consumers who have paid for and hold an enforceable right to receive their tickets.

NIVA was also asked whether it believes a season-ticket holder or other ticket owner should be prohibited from listing a ticket until the primary issuer chooses to deliver the digital ticket.

No response had been received as of publication. The story will be updated to reflect any response.

TicketNews also asked both NIVA and Luján’s office about the organizations consulted in developing the legislation.

Luján’s public description of the Taos roundtable identifies nonprofit promoters, venue operators, artists and community members but does not identify any consumer organizations, nor any any secondary ticket marketplace, ticket reseller, resale trade organization representing a different position on legal ticket resale.

The senator’s office was asked for a participant list and whether representatives of those groups had been invited.

TicketNews additionally asked whether Live Nation, Ticketmaster or other members of the broader Fix the Tix coalition participated in drafting, reviewing or advocating for the GHOST Act before its introduction, given how closely the proposed policy resembles a position Live Nation and Ticketmaster have publicly advocated. The companies earlier this year called for federal legislation imposing what Live Nation described as a “complete ban on speculative ticketing,” including listings for tickets that resellers do not yet own.

That overlap makes the unanswered question of who helped shape the GHOST Act relevant, particularly after the extensive debate over similarly industry-backed speculative-ticket restrictions in California.

The central policy question is ultimately narrower than whether deceptive ghost tickets should be prohibited.

It is whether preventing that deception requires prohibiting a consumer from offering a ticket that has already been purchased and is guaranteed to be delivered simply because the rights holder or its ticketing company has not delivered the digital asset yet.

California’s Legislature ultimately decided those are different things.

As currently written, the GHOST Act treats them the same.