The legal landscape around bot-based scalping is shifting. What started as a narrow piece of legislation targeting ticket scalping bots has evolved into a broader conversation about consumer protection in digital retail. In 2026, the BOTS Act and its proposed successors are at the center of a heated debate about who gets to buy limited products and whether automated purchasing should be regulated like other forms of market manipulation. This article breaks down the current state of anti-bot legislation, what has changed recently, and what it means for consumers, retailers, and resellers.
The Original BOTS Act: A Primer
The Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act was signed into law in December 2016. It was a response to widespread public frustration with ticket scalping bots that were buying up concert and sporting event tickets within seconds of their release and reselling them at massive markups.
What the BOTS Act Actually Does
The law has three core provisions:
- Prohibits circumvention: It is illegal to use automated software to circumvent security measures, access controls, or other technological barriers on ticket-selling websites
- Prohibits resale of circumvented tickets: Tickets acquired through prohibited means cannot be resold
- FTC enforcement: The Federal Trade Commission has authority to enforce violations as unfair or deceptive practices
What the BOTS Act Does Not Do
The limitations of the original BOTS Act are significant:
- Applies only to event tickets: It does not cover sneakers, gaming consoles, GPUs, trading cards, or any other retail goods
- No criminal penalties: Violations are civil matters enforced by the FTC, not criminal offenses
- No private right of action: Individual consumers cannot sue bot operators under the BOTS Act; only the FTC or state attorneys general can bring enforcement actions
- Minimal enforcement: In nearly a decade since passage, the FTC has brought fewer than a dozen enforcement actions under the BOTS Act
The limited scope and weak enforcement have made the original BOTS Act largely symbolic. Bot operators in the ticket space have adapted their tactics, and the deterrent effect has been modest at best.
The Push to Expand: Stopping Grinch Bots Act
The most significant legislative effort to extend bot prohibitions to retail goods is the Stopping Grinch Bots Act, which has been introduced in Congress multiple times since 2018. The latest version, introduced in late 2025, would:
- Extend the BOTS Act’s prohibitions to all online retail transactions, not just event tickets
- Increase penalties for violations, including fines of up to $50,000 per incident
- Require online retailers with annual revenue exceeding $50 million to implement minimum anti-bot protections
- Create a private right of action allowing consumers to sue bot operators directly for damages
- Establish a reporting mechanism for consumers to flag suspected bot activity to the FTC
Legislative Timeline
| Date | Event | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 2016 | BOTS Act signed into law | Enacted |
| Nov 2018 | Stopping Grinch Bots Act introduced (first time) | Did not pass |
| Nov 2019 | Reintroduced | Did not pass |
| Dec 2021 | Reintroduced with bipartisan support | Passed Senate, stalled in House |
| Nov 2023 | Reintroduced | Committee referral, no vote |
| Oct 2025 | Latest version introduced | In committee (current) |
The bill has historically enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate but has stalled in the House, where opposition from technology industry lobbyists and concerns about regulatory overreach have prevented floor votes. The 2025 version includes several compromises designed to address previous objections, including exemptions for small businesses and a phased implementation timeline.
Prospects for Passage
Industry observers give the Stopping Grinch Bots Act a 30-40% chance of passing in 2026, which is the highest probability it has had since its initial introduction. Several factors are working in its favor:
- Growing public frustration with bot-driven scarcity, particularly around console and GPU launches
- Increased media coverage of scalping operations and their economic impact
- Support from major retailers who want legal tools to complement their technological anti-bot measures
- An election year environment where consumer protection legislation polls well
Working against it:
- Technology industry lobbying arguing that the law could inadvertently affect legitimate automation tools
- Concerns about enforcement feasibility and costs
- Philosophical objections to government regulation of online purchasing behavior
- Lack of a clear enforcement mechanism that would not burden small retailers
State-Level Legislation
While federal legislation moves slowly, several states have taken matters into their own hands. State-level anti-bot and anti-scalping laws are creating a patchwork of regulations across the country.
New York
New York has been the most aggressive state on anti-bot legislation:
- 2019: Passed a law extending ticket bot prohibitions to include criminal penalties (up to 1 year in prison for repeat offenders)
- 2025: Enacted the Consumer Product Fair Access Act, which extends bot prohibitions to retail goods sold online by New York-based retailers or to New York consumers
- The 2025 law includes a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 per violation, plus actual damages and attorney fees
New Jersey
New Jersey’s anti-scalping legislation, passed in 2025, takes a different approach:
- Instead of targeting bots specifically, it prohibits the resale of consumer products at more than 20% above retail price during declared “high-demand periods”
- The state attorney general can declare a product to be in a high-demand period based on supply/demand data
- Violations carry fines of up to $10,000 per incident
- Critics argue this approach penalizes resale markets broadly rather than targeting the automation that enables scalping at scale
Other States
Several other states have legislation in various stages:
| State | Legislation | Status | Approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | AB-2137 | In committee | Bot prohibition for retail goods |
| Illinois | SB-0892 | Introduced | Price gouging limits on resale |
| Massachusetts | HD-4521 | Introduced | Bot prohibition with criminal penalties |
| Texas | HB-1034 | In committee | Retailer mandate for anti-bot measures |
| Washington | SB-5678 | Passed committee | Bot prohibition with private right of action |
The patchwork approach creates compliance challenges for national retailers and enforcement difficulties for state authorities, which is one argument proponents of federal legislation use to push for a national standard.
International Developments
European Union
The EU has taken the most comprehensive approach to regulating automated purchasing:
- The Digital Services Act (DSA), fully applicable since 2024, requires large online platforms to take measures against “manipulative practices,” which some member states have interpreted to include bot purchasing
- France passed a specific anti-bot law in 2024 prohibiting the use of automated tools to purchase goods for resale above retail price, with fines of up to EUR 150,000
- Germany is considering similar legislation as part of broader consumer protection reforms
- The EU AI Act, which entered force in 2025, could require transparency disclosures for AI-powered purchasing tools, though this interpretation has not been tested
United Kingdom
Post-Brexit, the UK has developed its own approach:
- The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 includes provisions that could be interpreted to cover bot purchasing, though this has not been specifically tested
- The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued guidance warning that automated purchasing for the purpose of resale could constitute an unfair commercial practice
- No specific anti-bot legislation has been passed, but the regulatory framework provides tools for enforcement
South Korea and Japan
Both countries have addressed scalping through existing consumer protection frameworks:
- South Korea classifies automated purchasing tools as “unfair trade practices” under their E-Commerce Act
- Japan amended its anti-scalping law in 2023 to explicitly cover online purchases and automated tools, with penalties including fines and imprisonment
Enforcement: The Weakest Link
Having laws on the books is meaningless without enforcement. The enforcement track record for anti-bot legislation globally is poor:
Enforcement Challenges
- Attribution difficulty: Proving that a specific individual or organization used bots requires technical evidence that is difficult to obtain without retailer cooperation
- Jurisdictional complexity: Bot operators can be located anywhere in the world, making domestic enforcement difficult
- Resource constraints: FTC and state AG offices have limited budgets and competing priorities; bot enforcement is rarely a top priority
- Retailer reluctance: Retailers are often unwilling to share the technical data needed to prove bot usage because it would reveal their security architecture
- Proportionality questions: Enforcement actions against individual bot operators cost more than the economic harm they cause, making them hard to justify from a cost-benefit perspective
Notable Enforcement Actions
Despite these challenges, there have been some enforcement successes:
- FTC v. Ticket Networks (2021): $31 million settlement for using bots to purchase and resell event tickets
- New York AG v. Prestige Entertainment (2022): Criminal prosecution of a ticket bot operation resulting in fines and probation
- France v. [Unnamed Bot Service] (2025): First enforcement action under France’s anti-bot retail law, resulting in EUR 75,000 fine against a sneaker bot operator
- FTC v. CartBot LLC (2025): $4.8 million settlement with a company that sold bot software specifically designed to circumvent retailer anti-bot measures
These cases demonstrate that enforcement is possible, but the small number of actions relative to the scale of bot activity shows that the deterrent effect remains limited.
What This Means for Different Stakeholders
For Consumers
The legislative trend is unambiguously positive for legitimate consumers. Even imperfect laws create some deterrent effect and provide legal frameworks that can be strengthened over time. Consumers can support this progress by:
- Contacting their elected representatives to support the Stopping Grinch Bots Act
- Reporting suspected bot activity to the FTC and state attorneys general
- Supporting retailers that invest in anti-bot measures (a topic we cover in detail in our piece on the state of restocking in 2026)
- Refusing to purchase from scalpers, which reduces the economic incentive for bot operation
For Retailers
Legislation creates both obligations and opportunities for retailers:
- Potential compliance requirements for minimum anti-bot protections
- Legal tools to pursue bot operators who damage their platforms
- Marketing opportunity to position as consumer-friendly through anti-bot investment
- Data sharing obligations with law enforcement that may conflict with security practices
Most major retailers support anti-bot legislation because it complements their existing technical investments and shifts some enforcement burden to government agencies.
For Resellers
The legal environment is becoming more hostile for resellers who use automated tools. While personal resale (buying one item and reselling it) remains legal everywhere, the use of bots to purchase at scale faces growing legal risk. Resellers should:
- Understand the specific laws that apply in their state and country
- Avoid bot software that circumvents security measures, as this carries the highest legal risk
- Recognize that manual resale at low volume is legally distinct from automated scalping at scale
- Prepare for a regulatory environment that will likely become more restrictive over time
The Broader Debate
Anti-bot legislation exists within a broader philosophical debate about market regulation:
Arguments for Regulation
- Bots create unfair advantages that harm average consumers
- Scalping inflates prices for goods that are often necessities (gaming for entertainment, event tickets for cultural participation)
- The free market argument does not apply when bots manipulate the market mechanism
- Brands that deliberately create scarcity have a social responsibility to ensure fair access
Arguments Against Regulation
- Resale is a fundamental market activity and regulating it creates precedent for broader price controls
- The real problem is artificial scarcity by brands, not bots; legislation treats the symptom
- Anti-bot laws are difficult to enforce and may penalize legitimate automation tools
- Market forces will eventually solve the problem as consumers stop paying scalper premiums
Both sides raise valid points. The practical reality is that legislation is moving forward regardless of the theoretical debate because voter frustration with scalping is a powerful political motivator.
What to Watch in 2026
Several developments could significantly change the legal landscape this year:
- Stopping Grinch Bots Act vote: If the bill reaches a floor vote in the House, its bipartisan support gives it a reasonable chance of passing
- New York enforcement actions: The Consumer Product Fair Access Act will face its first enforcement tests, establishing precedent for how state-level laws work in practice
- EU AI Act implementation: Guidance on how the AI Act applies to automated purchasing tools could set global norms
- FTC rulemaking: The FTC has signaled interest in pursuing rulemaking authority over automated purchasing even without new legislation, which could create de facto regulation through administrative action
- Major retailer lawsuits: Several retailers are reportedly considering direct legal action against bot service providers under existing fraud and computer access laws
The legislative trajectory is clear even if the timeline is uncertain: anti-bot regulation is expanding, enforcement is slowly improving, and the legal risk for scalper bot operations is increasing year over year.
FAQ
Does the BOTS Act currently apply to sneakers, consoles, or GPUs?
No. The original BOTS Act only applies to event tickets (concerts, sporting events, theater). It does not cover any retail goods. The proposed Stopping Grinch Bots Act would extend similar protections to all online retail transactions, but it has not yet passed Congress. Some state laws (notably New York’s Consumer Product Fair Access Act) do cover retail goods, but only within their respective jurisdictions.
Can I get in legal trouble for using a bot to buy sneakers?
It depends on your location. In most US states, there is no specific law prohibiting the use of bots for retail purchases as of early 2026. In New York, the Consumer Product Fair Access Act makes it illegal. In France, it is prohibited. In most other jurisdictions, using bots may violate retailer terms of service (which can result in order cancellation and account bans) but does not constitute a criminal or civil legal violation. This is changing rapidly, so checking current local laws is important.
Why has the Stopping Grinch Bots Act failed to pass multiple times?
The bill has faced opposition from technology industry groups who argue it could inadvertently restrict legitimate automation tools, from lawmakers concerned about regulatory overreach, and from a generally slow legislative process. It has passed the Senate multiple times but stalled in the House. The latest version includes compromises designed to address previous objections, and observers give it a higher chance of passing than in prior sessions.
What should I do if I suspect a bot is buying up products I want?
Report the activity to the retailer, as they have the most direct ability to detect and block bots. You can also report to the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov and to your state attorney general’s consumer protection division. While individual reports may not trigger immediate action, aggregate complaint data influences enforcement priorities and legislative momentum. Additionally, consider supporting retailers that invest heavily in anti-bot technology by preferring them for your purchases.
Will stronger laws actually stop scalping?
Laws alone will not eliminate scalping, but they are one important tool in a multi-faceted approach. Effective anti-scalping requires a combination of legislation (creating legal deterrents), technology (anti-bot systems by retailers), market design (raffle systems, purchase limits), and consumer behavior (refusing to buy from scalpers). No single approach is sufficient, but each layer of defense makes scalping less profitable and more risky. The goal is not perfection but incremental improvement that shifts the balance toward legitimate consumers.
