INTRODUCTION
For far too long, India has remained a relatively overlooked destination on the global tour map for international artists and live events. Despite its vast population and flourishing cultural appetite, India has not seen as many live events (either domestic or international) as the rest of the English-speaking world.
In the past decade, the ever-evolving dynamics of fan engagement and the increasingly significant revenue streams emanating from the Indian audience are making its inclusion on artists' itineraries not just desirable, but imminent. This has resulted in the ever-growing market of live events also reaching India. Only recently, it was reported that approximately INR 55 crores were generated through sale of tickets alone for Ed Sheeran's concert held in Mumbai in March 2025. Overall, between September and December 2024, about USD 85-100 million was generated through sale of tickets in various events being held in India.1 This reveals the rise in demand for live entertainment events in India. This also coincides with an unprecedented surge in the popularity of Indian artists like Diljit Dosanjh and Karan Aujla not only in India but globally. Moreover, during this period, India also welcomed various global artists such as Travis Scott, Ed Sheeran and Coldplay.
Concurrent to this growth, a concerning trend has emerged. Tickets for highly anticipated events, such as those of Diljit's recent 'Dil-Luminati Tour', reportedly sold out within minutes, if not seconds. Similarly, tickets for the various Coldplay events held in India saw overwhelming demand from eager fans, both in India and world over. Almost instantaneously, a substantial number of these tickets materialized across intermediary platforms/secondary marketplaces, often at drastically higher prices. This left behind a flurry of disillusioned fans who were not only disappointed but also grappling with a sense of being egregiously deceived.2 The repercussions were swift and multifaceted – manifesting as formal complaints to law enforcement agencies, allegations of financial malfeasance including tax evasion and money laundering, and even recourse to constitutional avenues alleging disruptions to public order.
As this vibrant intersection of international interest and local artistic prowess takes center stage, it becomes imperative to explore the intricacies of the phenomenon of ticket scalping in today's world.
WHAT IS TICKET SCALPING?
The Cambridge Dictionary defines "scalping" as the act of purchasing tickets through authorized avenues and selling them at higher prices when the demand surges.3 Along these lines, a ticket scalper is "an unauthorized ticket speculator who buys tickets to a performance or sports event and resells them at inflated prices". Simply put, ticket scalping, often used interchangeably with ticket reselling or ticket touting4, refers to the act of reselling tickets through secondary sources at variable prices driven by demand. This must be considered in the backdrop that tickets for live events are a perishable commodity, holding no value once the event concludes. Consequently, the forces of demand and supply may easily drive the prices of tickets in the secondary market significantly below or above the original price on the primary market.
Ticket scalpers employ diverse methods to achieve their objectives, ranging from individual efforts to sophisticated automated systems. In the past, individuals would acquire tickets from authorized sellers then resell them for profit. However, with the advent of advanced machine learning, the practice of ticket scalping is also evolving. The rise of sophisticated Artificial Intelligence ("AI") capabilities has fundamentally reshaped the landscape by allowing ticket scalpers to operate at an unprecedented scale and speed as also to speculate the demand and prices of tickets using algorithms and other tools. These are not simple scripts. Modern ticket bots are often highly complex software programs that leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to mimic human behavior and deftly bypass security measures, if any. This automated, high-speed purchase and resale of tickets creates artificial scarcity that drives up prices on the secondary market and profoundly exacerbates the issue of ticket scalping.5 Additionally, in rare but notable instances, scalping has been facilitated through insider collusion as well.6
UNAUTHORISED RESALE OF TICKETS
Despite fostering significant consumer frustration, the practice of ticket scalping is not outlawed in India, as opposed to black marketing of tickets. Black marketing is addressed by a framework that is multifaceted, departing from reliance on an overarching, singular definition or statute. This means that Indian law targets specific acts of black marketing and their consequences through a confluence of legislations embedded within the broader criminal framework. At the same time, various High Courts in India, particularly Punjab and Haryana, Bombay, and more recently Karnataka have consistently established that ticket reselling or scalping does not attract criminal liability.7
Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 ("BNS") brings under its ambit the act of unauthorised sale of tickets when such activity is carried out "by a member of a group or gang", categorising it as a form of petty organised crime. This legislative move signals an attempt to address the growing menace of coordinated resale networks that operate in the grey market, particularly around highly anticipated events. However, in our considered view, ticket scalping does not fall under the purview of organised crime as envisaged under Sections 111 and 112 of BNS as these provisions are enacted with the objective of tackling structured, habitual criminal activities carried out by organised groups with the intent to derive unlawful gain through coercive, violent, or systemically exploitative means.8
By contrast, ticket scalping, while occasionally subject to local rules, typically operates within a kind of 'grey' area. It involves the resale of a legitimate ticket, purchased through official channels, at a price higher than its face value. The practice lacks the key elements of threat, violence or habitual criminality as typically observed with organised crime and accordingly, does not fall under the overarching umbrella of Section 112; nor does it align with the legislative intent behind enactment of Section 112.
A black market is defined as an illicit or underground market for trade in goods in contravention of applicable legal or regulatory framework, particularly when such goods are subject to government rationing, price controls, or other regulatory oversight.9 Therefore, ticket scalping may be classified as black marketing when it is undertaken in contravention of express statutory provisions or prescribed regulatory conditions.
However, this issue remains largely untested in courts, and judicial interpretation will be key in determining the extent and applicability of existing legislation to ticket scalping. Regulatory scrutiny under criminal or consumer law frameworks traditionally concentrated on essential commodities, i.e. goods and services deemed critical for public welfare. Tickets to live entertainment events do not fall under this category and exist in a less regulated commercial sphere. Pertinently, the legal status of any sale or resale of tickets is often contingent upon the specific terms and conditions imposed by the event organizer or ticketing platform. These conditions are often contractual rather than statutory in nature.
INDIAN LEGAL LANDSCAPE: INTERMEDIARY MARKETPLACES AND SAFE HARBOUR
Presently, the domain of ticket reselling in India remains largely unaddressed by specific legislation, leaving consumers vulnerable to exploitation.10 Pertinently, the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisements Tax Act 1957 expressly prohibited reselling of tickets by the ticketholder for profit.11
The digital landscape consists of an expansive ecosystem of a large network of intermediaries functioning globally over the information superhighway – a network of interconnected systems and technologies that enable users to access and share information on the internet.12 In India, the Information Technology Act 2000 ("IT Act") provides a comprehensive definition of an intermediary, classifying it as any person who receives, stores or transmits an electronic record on behalf of another person or provides any service with respect to that record.13 Notably, this broad definition encompasses entities that operate secondary marketplaces, essentially providing neutral platforms where buyers and sellers of various commodities can interact and effectuate transactions.
A critical aspect of the definition incorporated in the IT Act lies in the phrase "on behalf of another person". This was not lost on the sensibilities of the lawmakers who recognized the need to balance digital growth while ensuring accountability towards the society at large, leading to the development of intermediary protection laws known as the "safe harbour" provisions. Safe harbour provisions are legal principles designed to protect online intermediaries from liability for the content uploaded by their users. Pertinently, this protection is typically contingent upon their adherence to due diligence and other compliance requirements. In India, this protection has been codified under Section 79 of the IT Act, establishing the general position that intermediaries are shielded from any liability for the content uploaded by the users of the intermediaries.14 Crucially, safe harbour provisions do not grant absolute immunity. The eligibility under this provision is contingent on the intermediaries' passive role; they must not initiate transmission of information, select, or modify the information, nor determine its target audience or viewership. Additionally, intermediaries are precluded from seeking this refuge if they neglect due diligence in the course of discharging their duties, disregard directives of authorities, or abet or aid in the commission of an unlawful act.15 16
INTERNATIONAL POSITION
The international legal and regulatory landscape concerning ticket scalping and intermediary liability – and consequently, safe harbour provisions – is intricate and fluid. Its contours are fundamentally shaped by the interplay of a diverse array of considerations such as consumer protection, fair trade principles, antitrust concerns and the evolving paradigms of ethical e-commerce.
Stance on ticket scalping practices
The legal position of ticket scalping is markedly diverse across jurisdictions, reflecting conflicting national philosophies on ticket reselling considerations. The approaches to the same ranges from outright ban to minimal regulation, and even no regulation at all. These approaches sometimes vary across different jurisdictions within a particular country as well. For instance, France, Italy and Poland17 along with certain Canadian provinces, some US states18, and parts of Australia19 have explicit laws prohibiting the resale of tickets above the face value or beyond the permissible/prescribed nominal margin.
On the other hand, in other jurisdictions such as Germany, Ireland, some US states and majority of India, ticket reselling is not illegal per se, but subject to the specific terms and conditions accompanying the ticket.20
Menace of automated scalping
Notably, despite these differing legal stances, the prevailing global trajectory has been leaning towards criminalization of usage of bots for bulk ticket acquisition. There is an increasing global crackdown on the use of bots to prevent automated, high-speed ticket scalping to drive up demand and prices. In 2016, the US enacted the Better Online Ticket Sales Act ("BOTS Act"), outlawing the use of computer programmes to navigate ticket purchasing systems and circumvent the integrity of ticket purchasing rules of the organizer.21 Recently, the US President has also signed an Executive Order directing enforcement of the BOTS Act and reformation of the live entertainment industry aimed at shielding American citizens from exploitation by ticket scalpers. This has also triggered a public inquiry into anti-competitive practices in the live entertainment industry.22 The UK and Canada have enacted similar provisions codified in the Digital Economy Act 2017 and Ontario Ticket Sales Act 201723 respectively.
Liability of intermediaries
At the same time, there is a growing emphasis on transparency requirements on secondary ticket sellers and platforms, mandating clear disclosure of original ticket prices and seller identities, a crucial step driven by consumer protection advocacy and regulatory bodies such as the UK's Competition and Marketing Authority.24 The US is also in the process of enacting the Fans First Act, which seeks to increase transparency in ticket sales by enhancing disclosure requirements, thereby protecting consumers.25 Unsurprisingly, the legal principles revolving around safe harbour provisions are also constantly evolving. However, a common global trend has been to preserve the immunity granted to intermediaries while simultaneously strengthening the framework for allocating responsibility and imposing clearer, more stringent obligations. The European Union Digital Service Act and UK Online Safety Act are aimed at introducing stricter due diligence and transparency requirements while also preserving the notice-takedown principles practiced globally.26
Ultimately, the international stance is converging towards a more nuanced, inter-woven and panoramic regulatory apparatus. While safe harbour principles typically continue to be protected, the unique and escalating challenges presented by ticket scalping are parallelly bolstering regulatory supervision.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The interplay between the escalating ticket scalping tactics – increasingly propelled by sophisticated AI-powered programs – and the nuanced application of safe harbour provisions, reveals a critical regulatory lacuna. Intermediaries, serving as neutral conduits for secure transactions, cannot be held inherently responsible for illicit activities of individuals, nor should they disproportionately bear the burden for regulatory oversight. Imputing primary accountability for sophisticated digital exploitation, which largely stems from systemic deficiencies rather than their direct operational failures, imposes an impractical onus on these entities. In order to truly foster consumer trust and effectively curb illicit profiteering, a comprehensive regulatory framework is imperative, one that primarily targets and penalizes the orchestrators of egregious resales, while simultaneously empowering and guiding intermediaries with clear legal directives to combat these detrimental practices and impose actionable accountability on these platforms.
Ultimately, the goal is not to unjustly burden a particular entity or individual, but to ensure that all stakeholders contribute to and co-exist in a fair, transparent, and consumer-centric live entertainment market.
Footnotes
3 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scalping
4 Mandeep Singh v. State (UT Chandigarh), 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 13773
7 Mandeep Singh v. State (UT Chandigarh), 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 13773; Amit Vyas v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 85; Amit Vyas v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) No. 012073/2025; Somarapu Vamashi v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 7476 of 2025
8 Section 111, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
9 Aiyar, Pinayur Ramanatha. Advanced Law Lexicon: A-C. 5th ed., vol. 1, Lexis Nexis, 2017
10 Mandeep Singh v. State (UT Chandigarh), 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 13773; Amit Vyas v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 85
11 Section 10(1), Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957
12 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/information-superhighway
13 Section 2(1)(w), Information Technology Act, 2000
14 Christian Louboutin Sas v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
15 Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162
16 Sections 79(2) and 79(3), Information Technology Act, 2000
19 https://stadiums.qld.gov.au/about/policies/ticket-scalping; https://www.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/consumer-rights-and-protection/services/ticket-reselling
20 Mandeep Singh v. State (UT Chandigarh), 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 13773; Amit Vyas v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 85
21 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3183
23 https://www.ontario.ca/page/buying-tickets-events-ontario
24 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04715/SN04715.pdf
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
