House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection. Today is Thursday, March 16, 2026, 2pm, and we're in Conference Room 329. We have a very short agenda of resolutions today, but I'll just remind you again that we have a two minute time limit and we have a timer here. When it starts flashing, I will ask you to wrap up your thoughts.

First up on the agenda is SCR 118, SD 1, urging the Insurance Division of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and Department of the Attorney General to convene a working group to identify feasible options and mechanisms to protect the state and its residents against the effects of climate change on the availability and affordability of insurance. First up is DCCA Insurance Division with comments. Thank you. Next up is Department of the Attorney General in opposition.

Afternoon. Deputy AG Christopher Han, Department of the Attorney General. We respectfully oppose this resolution for similar reasons as the companion that this committee heard last month. Mainly due to our ongoing lawsuit. That said, given what happened at the previous in the last hearing, you know, we understand the committee would be inclined to move this forward. So we did have a few asks if this committee is gonna move forward with it.

First being that the working group's purpose, the third prong regarding identifying legal means of recovery be omitted. Our primary concern is that that's gonna force us to discuss the ongoing lawsuit and potentially lead to leak sensitive privilege, information, or plans.

The second is amending it similar to ACR number 145 to remove the ATS, the convenient authority working group. The third is amending altering the term administrator. We looked into Rep Grandinetti's question from last, last hearing and same issue with HBI as the HHRM. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Thank you, Chair. For the Attorney General's Office. So you reference the case against the fossil fuels industry regarding damages or their effects on, and so you raised the case. What is the status of the case? And the reason why I asked that is because is this, would this kind of work come in after that case is settled?

Like, would it inform the amount of damages if the AG is successful in the suit and the courts say, yes. There is a connection and, yes, damages. Now to calculate damages, would this area of financial injury be part of what the Attorney General might look at if the Attorney General is successful in the suit?

So I'm not personally working on the lawsuit, but as I understand it, last I checked the docket, there were I think the court was hearing the motion to stay because of the DOJ's lawsuit against our department to try and enjoin us from proceeding with the suit. That federal lawsuit has been dismissed as I understand it. But overall, the lawsuit does still appear to be on the preliminary stage, so the issue of damages prevailing seems to be pretty far off at this point.

In terms of where this resolution comes in, the language is pretty broad right now. It's identify and analyze legal means available for recovery. So I don't think that's necessarily restricted to the amount of damages that occurred. That seems to encompass big pictures of what potential lawsuit to file, which would include this one that's ongoing.

Right. So this could possibly be a subset of damages if the original if this lawsuit that you that the AG identified in the testimony is successful, this may be a subset. Is that potentially fair to say or completely could not be included?

I wouldn't say it's completely not included.

Any other questions, Members?

I apologize. I came in late, so I hope this isn't something that was already asked. But my understanding is that the AG's lawsuit, just like the city lawsuit, is for damages to state infrastructure, state costs, or city costs. Whereas would this be something that could be used by other groups that have individuals or other corporations in our state that have suffered damages from climate change?

I think there was a separate measure this second before this committee SB 1166. Generally, when the state files a lawsuit, you know, we can't seek on behalf of private entities is my understanding. So that would I would imagine be a separate matter.

Any other questions, Members?

I think I think what you're asking though is whether this group would explore legal options or damages to other than what the state has experienced. I'm not sure Attorney General is necessarily the person to answer that, but I believe I believe so. Anyway.

Thank you for the clarification.

Okay. Any other questions, Members? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on to SCR 173, SD 1, convening a task force to address event ticket scalping in Hawaii. First up is DCCA's Office of Consumer Protection with comments.

Good afternoon. Mana Moriarty, the Executive Director of the Office of Consumer Protection. We submitted our comments on this measure. We requested an amendment adding the Director of the Office of Consumer Protection to the task force.

I'd like to just add that there are a couple of unusual things about this resolution. The first is, unlike in some other resolutions, in fact, many resolutions in my experience, where the legislature is telling the executive branch agencies that they must get together and talk about a certain subject.

In this case, we are asking to be allowed at the table. We are not currently at the table in this resolution. It's a bit unusual in my experience. The second thing that I wanna point out that's a little bit unusual here is that the membership with the task force is not particularly clear.

It's limited to a group of invited stakeholders, none of whom is named in the resolution with any specificity. They simply must fall into one of four categories that's generally described. I'll read them out. The first is producers and promoters of events in the state.

The second is owners of event venues in the state, and the third is patrons of events in the state. The fourth category is whoever the Chairs see fit to invite. I just point that out as 2 unusual things about this particular resolution from my experience. I'll be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. National Independent Venue Association in support on Zoom.

Thank you. Aloha, Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Kendall Gilvar representing the National Independent Venue Association, which supports independently owned and operated venues, promoters, and festivals across the country and in Hawaii. Right now, Hawaii fans are being priced out of live entertainment by professional ticket scalpers.

Many primary event tickets sell out immediately and then reappear on sites like StubHub and Vivid Seats at 2, 5, even 10 times the face value price. In many cases, these tickets are fraudulent, invalid, or never delivered. This is not a casual fan to fan resale thing that's happening.

It's a professionalized out of state industry using technology to control supply and maximize profits off of Hawaii consumers, and the impact of that is is truly real. When fans are forced to pay hundreds more dollars on these resale sites, that often becomes their entire entertainment budget for the year, let's say.

Meaning, those consumers spend less at the venue, less supporting local restaurants around the corner, and supporting the small businesses that create culture in Hawaii. SB 1160 drew overwhelming constituent testimony from Hawaii consumers, sharing firsthand really nightmare ticketing experiences, which from our perspective makes clear the urgent need to rein in these predatory resale practices.

For today's measure, that momentum has only grown, with strong support from city and state agencies, industry leaders, and at least 37 constituents already, reflecting this rising public concern and expanding support really for action from the legislature.

We support the establishment of a task force made up of Hawaii legislators, venues, fans, and small businesses in the state, and we believe it will help to fully assess the scope of consumer harm that we are beginning to, you know, pull pull back the the impact of. Thank you for your time today, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. StubHub offering comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tiffany Yajima on behalf of StubHub. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We provided comments on this measure. This measure only focuses really on the secondary market, but 90% of the tickets sold are actually sold on the primary ticket market. We would ask the committee to consider expanding the scope of this working group to look at the ticketing ecosystem as a whole and to also include ticket sellers on this working group. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Ticket Policy Forum with comments.

Good afternoon. Lori Lum on behalf of the Ticket Policy Forum. And I'm pretty much gonna stand on my testimony and echo the comments of the previous testifier. We are also recommending that the task force be expanded. So you include primary as well as the secondary market and really capture the whole ticket ecosystem. Again, the secondary market only represents maybe 10 to 20%.

So the vast majority consumers are buying on that primary market. We also agree that the Office of Consumer Protection should be specified and included as a member on the task force. And if you would also, lastly, we'd like to request that you would ask for your consideration and including representatives of the secondary ticket marketplace as well. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Come on up.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Dennis Ling on behalf of DBEDT. I believe we submitted late testimony.

We have your testimony.

Yeah. DBEDT stands in its written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other testifiers on SCR 173? Seeing none. Just noting an additional 37 individuals who submitted testimony in support. Members, any questions?

Lori. You're asking that the primary ticket sellers are included in this, but are they not already included in this? I mean, the...

We were asking to include representatives of the secondary ticket marketplace as well as the Office of Consumer Protection.

Okay. So not. Tiffany, what was that your testimony asking for the primary?

I think our I think our intent in asking to be included was just for the ticketing industry as a whole. I mean, in general to be included because right now it it includes only the venues and the artists, but we would ask that ticketers also be included.

So it's like the Ticketmaster of the world kind of thing?

We would leave that to... I mean, there has been recent news as of this morning with respect to the primary ticket market and monopoly behavior there. It's still relatively new, but we would just ask on StubHub's behalf if we could be included in the working group.

Okay. Thanks.

Tiffany, can you... You mentioned in your testimony the Ticketmaster decision. Can you explain its relevance to this issue, which seems focused specifically on the secondary market, and why you're advocating for the expansion?

So actually we filed our testimony obviously 48 hours prior, so it didn't include any recent updates as of this morning. But I think our position really is that the majority of the tickets are sold on the primary market, and the premise for this resolution is to look at the secondary market where only a small portion of tickets are sold. So we'd ask that the scope of this working group be expanded to ticketers as well so that we can have a conversation in good faith about the ticketing industry.

I was also wondering if you have data on what percentage of tickets on your platform are sold by individuals versus professional resellers.

We'd be happy to look into that. I wouldn't have that data, and I'm not sure that data is available because what it is is a marketplace for ticket sellers and resellers. So happy to have that conversation. I think that's why we would like to be included in the working group so that we can have those conversations.

You're looking for that data. I think what Vice Chair is looking for maybe people who have sold tend to sell 10 or more tickets a year. I mean, you know, average people probably are not selling a whole bunch of tickets every year. You might get sick.

You might resell your ticket. But if it's a professional scalper, I'm assuming they are posting many more than five to 10 tickets a year. So what what proportion of that of the tickets being sold are from a small portion of probably your user base?

Sure. I'd be happy to look at that, and if we're included in the working group... Thank you.

I was also wondering in our some of the testimony in support mentioned speculative tickets. Wondering if you can share what's what if any systems you have in place to ensure that resellers are not selling tickets that don't actually exist.

Sure. We'd be happy to look in that as part of the work.

Okay. Thank you. For Office of Consumer Protection. My reading of the task force structure is that there is like, it is a funky structure, but that there is sort of meaningful engagement with OCP worked into the process of creating the reports. Do you disagree?

Yes. I would disagree that it's clear that OCP has a meaningful role in coming up with a report. And let me point you to the actual membership in there. I read the first three. I didn't read the fourth category. The fourth category is the only place in here where arguably you might say that OCP is involved.

But if you look at it, we're not really. It says other relevant stakeholders as may be invited by the Chairs of the task force, particularly government agencies in other places that have already experienced success addressing ticket scalping. I'm not sure that includes OCP.

So as this reso is drafted, I don't really see a place for OCP here. Now we are happy to address some of these issues. I think you can see from the groundswell of support for this resolution that many people are interested in addressing issues of affordability.

It becomes tricky, however, if the role is going for OCP is going to be prescribed by the Chair or by the task force without consultation with OCP. And we alluded to that in our testimony. We'd like to understand what their expectation of our role is, and we'd like to have a clear idea of what our role should be. So I don't think that's present in this resolution.

But I think on page three, subsection four, it says engage with government regulators and stakeholders such as consumer protection agencies in Hawaii. That's you guys. Right?

Right. Does it say what our role is going to be?

No. No. It it doesn't. It requires them to to engage you, though. Anyway, you wanted to know, you were curious if you were in here. I think that's pretty clearly you. I mean, we can we can put your office directly in here, engage with the Office of Consumer Protection.

But I think you're, I'm not sure who else they talk to. So I think you're pretty safe, but you're right. You're not part of the task force itself. The task force would just be engaging with you, which is a little more ambiguous, I'd say. That's fair.

Yes. I'd ask a question regarding that same paragraph. Would your office be open to, because it does require a report to be submitted to the legislature. Is that something your office would, if you are on the task force, would your office be staffing the actual putting together and compiling the report?

We'd be happy to take a key role in putting together the report task force.

Oh, you promised.

I have a question for NIVA online.

Hi. Happy to help.

I always want, going back to the question I asked to StubHub. I was wondering if there's any, like, independent research on those questions of whether or what percentage of tickets on secondary market platforms are being sold by professional resellers.

Yeah. So from NIVA's perspective, this data in terms of the differentiation between professional resellers and people who might just be reselling their tickets in case they get sick. That has intentionally not been shared with state legislatures like yourself. There was even a Senate hearing where a very similar question was asked, and the secondary sellers declined to answer.

They said they were gonna follow-up via written testimony, and that never really came. And I think, you know, that's concerning because from our perspective, across the pond in the UK, they did some studies, and their estimates were that 80 to 90% of those reselling on these platforms are professionalized brokers who do this as their primary source of income. So I fear that they don't want to state that statistic in the United States in any state legislature.

So you would want them on the task force then so that they could contribute this information to the task force?

In terms of the makeup of the task force, I believe that the best makeup of the task force is those who are independent voices from Hawaii. If that means that I'm not on the task force as a national organization, I am A okay with that. I think the Hawaii residents who are experiencing the impacts of the problematic secondary market should be the ones speaking to that impact.

But the fix is in the secondary market. Right? Shouldn't we have the secondary market at the table?

I mean, I didn't write the specific statute about who should be relevant. I leave that up to the sponsor. But again, from my perspective, grassroots voices expressing their impact are more powerful than out of state professional lobbyists.

That's why we have state professional lobbyists.

Or Tiffany again. Like, seriously considering your your request to be a member of the task force because I think there is value to having, you know, all sides at the table. But I but I also I also like the idea of people who are being most impacted kind of forming the core of that task force and then engaging with the other stakeholders in a structured way.

But I was I wanna, I guess, address the question head on. But is it is it does your does do tickets like StubHub or do companies like StubHub earn more money when resale prices are higher because transaction values get higher? Like, is there an incentive to keep second resell tickets high?

So I guess I would say that on StubHub or a secondary ticket platform, they don't set the prices. It's the consumer or the person who's selling the ticket who sets the price. So the platform itself doesn't determine. So if I were to buy a ticket for a concert that I can't attend, I, as the ticket seller, would set the price that I wanna sell it for.

Right. But then if that price is higher, does StubHub profit from a greater transaction value or do the fees increase proportionally?

Presumably. I would have to look into that and that could be something that we could take a look at.

Any other questions, Members? Okay. Seeing none. Recess.

We're reconvening the Committee on Consumer Protection for decision making.

First up is SCR118 SD1, recommendation on this one is to move it out with just a couple amendments removing the Attorney General as co-convener and adding as a member and amending membership from the administrator of HPIA and the administrator of HSRF to the board chairs of both. And acknowledging the Attorney General's concerns, I will leave that to the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs.

Okay. Chair for the vote.

Oh, sorry. Any discussion? Sorry.

Vicky, I just want to confirm, Were all of these order yeah. I see. So it's at the top, it says order designees. So let's switch

Order designee.

Order, yes. Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments, concerns? Okay. Seeing none, chair for the vote.

You're voting now on SCR118 SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice chair vote aye. Rep Chun?

Aye.

Rep. Ilagan, excuse. Rep. Ichiyama, excuse. Rep. Iwamoto?

Aye.

Rep. Kong?

Aye.

Rep. Lowen?

Aye.

Rep. Marten?

Aye.

Rep. Tam?

Rep. Peirick?

Aye.

Aye.

The chair of your commission is adopted.

Thank you.

Okay. Next measure is SCR 173 SD 1, convening a task force to address Event Ticket Staffing in Hawaii. Appreciate the discussion on this measure. And my recommendation is to add the DCCA Office of Consumer Protection as a member of the task force and amend Section 4 Line 12 on page three, just to remove the reference to Hawaii and keep the reference to consumer protection agencies in other states. That's it.

Members, any discussion?

Chair, I'm wondering if it'd be helpful to include in the committee report that the Office of Consumer Protection would be willing to help write the report to the Legislature. Because it's rare that the agency actually says, we'll write it. Most of the times, they're like, no. We don't wanna write it.

Sure. Okay. We can do that. And I also wanted to acknowledge

Can I put it in my pencil right now or require them to write it to do the report?

I'm not sure if that's what we said.

And wanted to acknowledge the testimony also from StubHub. I do think there's value. I think it's important that ticket resellers have meaningful engagement in this process, and I think the structure does account for that. Any other discussion? Any other concerns?

Okay. Seeing none, Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting now on SCR 173 SD1. Vice chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments knowing the presence of Rep. Lee and the excused absence of Rep. Ichiyama. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no.

And I'll show your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We are adjourned.