Event ticket fraud has measurable effects at several points in the buying journey: consumers lose money, receive unusable tickets, or discover that a resale listing was not what it appeared to be. UK figures from 2024–2026 include £150 million in estimated consumer losses, around 3,700 concert-ticket fraud reports, and more than 1,000 cases linked to one major tour. The figures below separate surveys, reported losses, estimates and enforcement allegations so the scale of the problem remains clear.
Contents
- Recent losses and report volumes
- Who is targeted
- Where scams and resale activity happen
- Why buyers use risky sources
- What happens after purchase
- Broker scale and resale exposure
- Enforcement cases and ticket-abuse impacts
Recent losses and report volumes
The available UK measures indicate that ticket fraud is both a high-volume reporting problem and a substantial financial problem. They are not interchangeable: one figure is a survey-based estimate, while others count reports or reported losses.
- O2 research cited by the UK Home Office estimated that UK consumers lost £150 million to ticket fraud in the year before August 2026. This is an estimate for that period, not a confirmed total of every loss. (UK Home Office, “Gig goers urged to Stop! Think Fraud before buying tickets”)
- In O2’s 2026 polling, 14% of gig-goers said they had bought a fake ticket. The same polling found that 77% of the tickets had been bought through online platforms. (UK Home Office)
- Action Fraud recorded around 3,700 concert-ticket fraud reports in the UK during 2024. The public reported losing more than £1.6 million in those concert-ticket scams. (Citizens Advice, “Don’t get caught out this festival season”)
- Citizens Advice reported that 2024 concert-ticket fraud losses were more than twice the previous year’s figure. Almost 50% of the cited reports involved offers made through social-media platforms. (Citizens Advice)
- Lloyds reported a 529% rise in concert-ticket scam reports in 2023 compared with 2022. This is a change in reports, not a statement that losses rose by the same percentage. (Lloyds Banking Group, “The biggest purchase scams to look out for in 2024”)
The measures point to a recurring pattern: online buying creates a large surface for fraudulent offers, while official reporting captures only the cases that reach a reporting channel. The survey estimate and police-report figures therefore describe different parts of the same risk rather than a single combined total.
Who is targeted
Age and event popularity both appear in the supplied measurements. O2’s 2026 polling showed a wide age gap: 31% of UK gig-goers aged 18–24 said they had been sold a fake ticket, compared with 4% of those aged 55 and over. These are self-reported survey results, so they should not be read as a population-wide count of confirmed fraud cases. (UK Home Office)
Lloyds’ analysis of Oasis-related scams shows how a high-demand tour can concentrate victim reports. People aged 35–44 accounted for 30% of the analyzed cases. Oasis fans represented 56% of all reported concert-ticket scams in the period covered by that analysis. After the sold-out tour was announced, Lloyds identified more than 1,000 Oasis ticket-scam cases from August 2024 to April 2025. (Lloyds, “Lloyds alerts Oasis fans to surge in ticket scams”)
Lloyds extrapolated from its own customer data to estimate at least 5,000 UK victims of Oasis ticket scams and more than £2 million in losses between August 2024 and April 2025. The extrapolated victim and loss totals are estimates, not a direct census. The largest single loss in the analysis exceeded £1,700, while the average loss was reported as £436. (Lloyds)
| Measure | Reported figure | Period or population |
|---|---|---|
| Gig-goers who bought a fake ticket | 14% | O2 polling, 2026 |
| Ages 18–24 who said they were sold a fake ticket | 31% | O2 polling, 2026 |
| Ages 55+ who said they were sold a fake ticket | 4% | O2 polling, 2026 |
| Oasis ticket-scam cases identified by Lloyds | More than 1,000 | August 2024–April 2025 |
| Estimated UK Oasis scam victims | At least 5,000 | August 2024–April 2025 |
Where scams and resale activity happen
Online channels are central to both legitimate resale and fraudulent offers. In the 2026 O2 polling, 77% of tickets had been bought through online platforms. In Lloyds’ Oasis analysis, 90% of reported scams began on Meta-owned platforms. The latter is specific to the analyzed Oasis cases and does not establish that the same share applies to every event. (UK Home Office; Lloyds)
Which?’s nationally representative UK adult survey, conducted March 7–17, 2025, found that 63% had bought event tickets online. Ten percent had bought tickets through a secondary-ticketing platform, and 8% had resold event tickets. Among those who had resold tickets, 35% used a secondary-ticketing platform. (Which?, “Putting Fans First Ticketing Consultation”)
The Which? supporter survey provides a more detailed picture of resale routes. Of supporters who had resold tickets, 53% used the official resale platform linked to the primary seller, 21% sold directly to a friend or family member, and 16% used social media. These percentages describe that supporter subgroup and should not be added to the 8% UK-adult resale figure. (Which?)
Why buyers use risky sources
The main reason for buying resale tickets in the Which? survey was lack of availability through the official seller: 61% of UK adults who bought resale tickets said the event had sold out on the official site. A further 24% said they were seeking a bargain. For 16%, the secondary site appeared among the first search results. (Which?)
Confusion about the selling channel is another measurable factor. Sixty-one percent of UK adults surveyed by Which? said they were confused about the difference between primary and secondary sellers. Fourteen percent of people buying secondary tickets did not realize they were on a resale website. Among Which? supporters using secondary platforms, the corresponding figure was 26%. (Which?)
These results connect demand pressure with presentation risk. A sold-out event can push buyers toward resale, while search visibility and unclear seller identity can make the resale status harder to recognize. The figures do not show that every secondary platform is fraudulent; they show why buyers may enter a market where validity, fees and seller identity require closer checking.
What happens after purchase
In Which?’s March 7–17, 2025 survey, 21% of people buying through secondary websites or social media experienced ticket-related issues. Among respondents who experienced issues, 60% never made it to the event and 30% were charged additional fees at the venue. (Which?)
Price and validity concerns were also prominent. Twenty-eight percent of people buying secondary tickets did not believe they paid a reasonable price, and 19% of people using a secondary ticket website said the total price including fees was not transparent. Among Which? supporters using resale platforms, 72% worried about additional fees, 67% thought their ticket might not be valid, 65% feared they might be refused entry, and 61% thought the ticket might be fake or a scam. (Which?)
The supporter results also record specific problems among people who purchased from secondary sites: 31% experienced ticket issues, 13% received tickets that did not match the buyer’s name, 9% never received the ticket, 7% received an invalid ticket, and 7% were refused entry. These figures describe reported experiences in the surveyed group; they are not additive because one purchase could involve more than one problem. (Which?)
Broker scale and resale-market exposure
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s complaint concerning Live Nation and Ticketmaster describes a large increase in Ticketmaster resale concert-ticket volume: from 3.8 million tickets in 2019 to more than 20 million in 2024. This is a market-volume figure from the complaint, not a fraud-loss estimate. (FTC, “Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, Civil Penalties, and Other Relief”)
The complaint also describes broker exposure in Ticketmaster’s resale market. Brokers listed 55% of tickets offered for resale at one point in 2018. They accounted for 63% of consumer spending on resale tickets in the first quarter of 2022 and 78% in the first quarter of 2023. Consumers spent $504 million on Ticketmaster resale concert tickets listed by brokers across those first quarters. (FTC)
The same FTC complaint cites company data showing that five brokers controlled 6,345 Ticketmaster accounts in 2018. Those accounts possessed 246,407 concert tickets associated with 2,594 events. A September 2018 presentation associated each TradeDesk account with approximately 200 Ticketmaster accounts on average. These figures describe allegations and company data cited in the complaint; they do not independently establish wrongdoing by every account or broker named in the data. (FTC)
Enforcement cases and ticket-abuse impacts
Enforcement records provide another way to measure ticket-abuse activity. In a 2026 action, the FTC alleged that Elite Events bypassed ticket limits for more than 2,400 events. Between September 2024 and March 2025, the company used 75 accounts to buy 277 Metallica tickets despite a six-ticket-per-purchaser limit. It paid between $50 and $270 per ticket and resold them for between $100 and $400 each. These are allegations described in the FTC action. (FTC, “FTC Takes Action Against Elite Events”)
The FTC’s proposed order imposed more than $10.7 million in civil penalties against Elite Events and its operators, with $300,000 payable under the suspension terms. The penalty figure belongs to that enforcement action and should not be treated as a total for all ticket fraud. (FTC)
The FTC also reported three ticket-broker cases under the BOTS Act in 2021. Those three cases resulted in orders requiring $3.7 million in civil penalties. (FTC, “BOTS Act compliance: Time for a refresher?”)
Together, the enforcement figures show how ticket-abuse impacts can be counted beyond individual consumer complaints: the number of events affected, accounts used, tickets controlled, resale prices, and civil penalties. They remain distinct from survey findings and reported-loss totals, so each measure is most useful when read with its source, geography, period and definition intact.