Secondary ticket market: buying tickets on the internet – and then being denied entry?
The secondary ticket market is largely dominated by online marketplaces and ticket platforms. For popular events, especially sporting events and concerts, ticket dealers usually buy up large ticket contingents sometimes even before the official advance sale begins using so-called ticket bots (i.e. automated software programs that use online ticket sales to buy large quantities of tickets for concerts or sporting events in milliseconds), and they usually do so "anonymously" (i.e. concealing the buyer's true identity). This significantly reduces the number of tickets available for fans from the outset. Tickets are then offered on the secondary ticket market at prices that are considerably higher than the original ticket price. These tickets are often for sale on the secondary market before the official pre-sale has even begun. These are "short sales", where ticket buyers are not aware that the reseller does not actually have the ticket yet.
Efforts by organisers of concerts and sporting events to prevent the resale of tickets for their events at prices that in some cases significantly exceed the original price of the tickets have kept the courts busy for several years. The coalition government addressed the issue in the coalition agreement and announced its intention to protect consumers and event organisers with transparency and price caps.
Regional courts strengthening rights of event organisers vis-à-vis ticket platforms
Recently, various regional courts have strengthened the rights of event organisers vis-à-vis ticket platforms. Below, we provide an overview of current case law.
The right to take legal action and misleading information about the right to enter the event with personalised tickets
In its judgment of 23 October 2025 (91 O 56/24), Berlin Regional Court II handed down a notable ruling in favour of a well-known Berlin football club. The subject of the legal dispute was the question of whether and under what conditions the club could take action under the law on unfair competition against the operator of an international secondary ticket market platform. The judgment contains several practical observations – in particular regarding the organiser’s right to take legal action, the secondary burden of proof on the platform operator, and the relationship between data protection law and the procedural duty to provide clarification.
Right to take legal action under the aspect of promoting third-party competition
A first focus of the decision concerns the question of the right of football club bringing the action to do so. The court affirmed this at any rate under the aspect of promoting third-party competition. The special point in this case was that the platform operator did not disclose any information identifying the sellers behind the respective ticket offers. It therefore remained unclear whether the sellers were private individuals or entrepreneurs (Unternehmer) within the meaning of section 2 no. 4 German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) and thus specific competitors of the football club.
The court solved this problem in favour of the club bringing the action by placing the secondary burden of proof on the ticket platform for those facts that lie within its own area of responsibility and are not accessible for the football club. This includes, in particular, the identity of the natural or legal entities acting as sellers on the platform. The club had sufficiently demonstrated that tickets offered on the platform were being sold by vendors who appeared to be acting in a commercial capacity. The club was not able to further clarify the facts on its own, whereby the platform operator could have easily assisted in doing so.
Data protection law as an objection to the secondary burden of proof?
The court's comments regarding data protection law are particularly noteworthy. The ticket platform had stated that it was prohibited from disclosing personal information about its sellers on grounds of data protection. The regional court clearly rejected this argument: The provisions of data protection law are not intended to undermine the secondary burden of proof on the platform operator named as a defendant. Rather, in such a case, the platform could assert that there was a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR to ensure that the disclosure complies with data protection regulations. Furthermore, in the context of legal action, the conditions set out in Article 6 (4) and Article 23 (1) (j) GDPR, in conjunction with section 24 (1) (2) German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), are met; these provisions expressly specify the enforcement of civil law claims as a permissible purpose of processing. This clarification by the court is likely to have significance beyond this specific case. Platform operators cannot simply hide behind data protection law to avoid their procedural obligation to cooperate.
Right to injunctive relief due to withholding essential information in a misleading manner
In a second ruling, Berlin Regional Court II granted the football club's request for an injunction. The club had requested that the platform operator be ordered to refrain from selling, offering and advertising tickets for its Bundesliga home matches unless it was also pointed out that tickets purchased on the platform do not automatically entitle the holder to admission to the respective match.
The court followed the club's view and saw the platform's behaviour as misleading to potential ticket buyers. Specifically, it deemed the omission of information about the personalisation of tickets to be withholding of essential information pursuant to sections 5a (1), 5b (1) no. 1 German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) and as withholding of main characteristics of the service within the meaning of section 5 (2) no. 1 German Unfair Competition Act (UWG). The court found that buyers who purchased tickets via the platform in question faced a significant risk of being unable to attend the match because of the ticket they purchased not being valid since it was not personalised with their name. Information regarding the personalisation of a ticket is commercially relevant to prospective ticket buyers and is essential for them to make an informed purchasing decision. If they knew about this risk, a reasonable consumer might decide not to make the purchase – particularly if the ticket was expensive or attending the event involved a significant investment of time and money.
Mannheim Regional Court recently ruled against the same secondary ticket market platform, finding that the unauthorised resale of tickets for matches of a Karlsruhe club was unlawful (22 O 8/25). The court prohibited the platform from enabling the resale of tickets without clearly indicating that such tickets do not ensure access to the club's matches. Furthermore, the court found that fans were misled by the failure to disclose the risk of being denied entry.
A similar decision was won by a well-known Hamburg football club against the secondary ticket market platform before Hamburg Regional Court in the judgment of 2 January 2026 (415 HKO 73/24). The court upheld the validity of a resale ban imposed by the club on unauthorised platforms and ordered the secondary market platform in question to clearly state when selling tickets for the football club’s home matches in future that any ticket purchased on the secondary market platform is invalid.
Misleading short sales and information on limited availability
Even before the aforementioned rulings, Munich Regional Court I had issued a final judgment on 26 July 2024 (37 O 2100/22) concerning short sales on the same secondary ticket market platform. The platform enabled the sale of tickets for the club’s home matches even though the resellers did not actually have the tickets in their possession, as the club’s official ticket sales had not yet begun. Information on the platform's website such as "available" and the indication that the tickets were "downloadable with one click" suggested to the average consumer that the seller already had the tickets. The court clarified that the average consumer assumes that they are buying a ticket which the contractual partner actually has, which will certainly give they access to the event, and not merely the possibility of obtaining a ticket if the contractual partner succeeds in obtaining one. The court considered this to be a violation of section 5 (1) sentence 1 no. 1 German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) (old version).
In addition, the court ruled that prominent statements made on the platform, such as "only 361 tickets left for this event on our website" and "less than 1 % of all tickets for this venue currently available on our website", were misleading within the meaning of section 5 (1) German Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Such statements created the impression among the targeted public that only a few tickets were still available and led the buyer to act hastily and rashly. In reality, official ticket sales had not even begun.
Deception about transferability of the tickets
Another focus of the judgment of Munich Regional Court I (judgment 26 July 2024 - 37 O 2100/22) concerns deception about the unrestricted transferability of the tickets. The platform gave the impression that the tickets on offer were fully transferable and entitled the buyer to enter the stadium. In fact, the club had effectively restricted the transfer of its tickets, which were designed as restricted authorisation documents within the meaning of section 808 (1) German Civil Code (BGB), in its General Terms and Conditions for Tickets.
The court expressly confirmed the effectiveness of these restrictions on transferring. The court stated that they were neither unclear nor surprising, and did not unreasonably disadvantage customers within the meaning of section 307 (1) German Civil Code (BGB). The organisers of football matches are generally responsible for the corporate decision not to supply commercial ticket dealers outside their sales organisation in order to maintain a social price structure and ensure safety in the stadium. Since the club in question carries out random checks at the stadium entrance, there is a real risk for fans who purchase via the defendant platform that they will not be admitted. The court judged this behaviour to always be unlawful in accordance with section 3 (3) German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) in conjunction with no. 9 of its Annex.
Joint position paper by DOSB, DFB, DFL and BDKV on secondary ticket market
The German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB), the German Football Association (DFB), the DFL Deutsche Fußball Liga GmbH (DFL) and the Federal Association of the Concert and Event Industry (BDKV) published a joint position paper on 25 July 2025. In the position paper, they first explain that there is currently no effective legal protection for consumers and event organisers in Germany under current law and call for stronger regulation of the secondary ticket market for cultural and sporting events in Germany.
The proposals set out in the position paper can be summarised as follows:
- Expanding information obligations for operators of online ticket marketplaces:
According to section 312l German Civil Code (BGB), operators of online ticket marketplaces are subject to the general information obligations of Article 246d Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB). According to Article 246d section 1 no. 7 Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB), operators are merely required under current law to inform consumers "whether, and if so, to what extent, the organiser has set a price for the purchase of this admission ticket, according to information from the seller."
An expansion of the information obligations of operators of online ticket marketplaces has been proposed. The consumer should also be informed about the main characteristics of the ticket, such as the original price set by the organiser (as opposed to the "indication" of the original price by the reseller), deviations from the original price, exact seat details, the tradability or trading restrictions of the ticket and whether the ticket is available at the time the order is placed.
According to Article 246d section 1 no. 4 Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB), the operators of online ticket marketplaces de lege lata only have to inform consumers "whether the provider of the goods, services or digital content is a trader according to their own declaration to the operator of the online marketplace". An expansion of Article 246d section 1 no. 4 Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB) is proposed in such a way that the information obligations of the operator in relation to traders also include the business address. In the case of private resellers, information about their identity must be provided. In the case of brokering third-party offers, the identity of the third party must also be disclosed.
- Sanctioning of the seller in the event of incorrect information: Article 246e section 1 (2) no. 10 Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB) only provides de lege lata for a sanctioning of the operators of online ticket marketplaces for missing or incorrect consumer information. The position paper calls for individual sellers on marketplaces to be sanctioned if they withhold information or provide false information. It is therefore proposed to expand the sanction options of Article 246e section 1 (2) no. 10 Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (EGBGB) to the sellers on the marketplaces.
- Notice and take down: operators of online ticket marketplaces would have to set up their own notice and take down system to remove illegal or incorrect offers without undue delay after being notified by organisers; failure to remove offers will be sanctioned.
- Expansion of "blacklist" (no. 23a Annex to section 3 (3) German Unfair Competition Act (UWG)):
Pursuant to no. 23a of the Annex to section 3 (3) German Unfair Competition Act (UWG), there is de lege lata a ban on the resale of tickets to consumers "if the trader has purchased the tickets using automated procedures designed to circumvent restrictions on the number of tickets to be purchased by a person or other rules applicable to the sale of tickets". The existing prohibition is a "toothless tiger", as the organiser is usually not able to prove the use of ticket bots. The position paper therefore proposes expanding the prohibition significantly. It should also cover buying and reselling under false identities, via "straw men" or by using untrue facts. In addition, the burden of proof will be reversed in favour of the organisers.
Furthermore, the position paper proposes that the regulation be amended to include the price cap explicitly announced in the coalition agreement.
Case law sends a clear signal to secondary ticket market platforms
The decisions of the Regional Courts of Munich I, Berlin II, Hamburg and Mannheim send a clear and uniform signal to secondary ticket market platforms. The ruling by Munich Regional Court I in 2024 already set fundamental standards – in particular on misleading short sales, deception about the transferability of personalised tickets and the effectiveness of transfer restrictions in the organisers' general terms and conditions.
The decisions by the Regional Courts of Berlin II, Hamburg and Mannheim build on this and confirm that organisers can enforce competition law claims even if the identity of the sellers operating on the platform remains concealed. At the same time, the courts unanimously confirm that data protection regulations do not preclude a procedural duty to co-operate or the disclosure of information on the seller. Above all, however, the rulings show that ticket platforms must inform their customers transparently about the risks associated with personalised tickets – otherwise they could face claims for injunctive relief under competition law.
At the same time, the joint position paper by DOSB, DFB, DFL and BDKV makes it clear that there is currently no effective legal protection for consumers and organisers under current law. If they are transposed into law, the measures proposed in the position paper would fundamentally change the framework conditions of the secondary ticket market in favour of event organisers and consumers and make it easier to enforce the law.
We will keep you up to date in our blog series on Football & Law with the latest articles on this topic. You will find articles such as "Between neutrality and sanctions: Political conflicts in sports" or "World Cup kick-off: When football and law meet“.
This article was prepared with support from Mr Moritz Clasen.
