NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-344 (2026)

Sale of admission tickets in excess of printed price

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person, firm, or corporation shall be allowed to add a reasonable service fee to the face value of the tickets sold, and the person, firm, or corporation which sells or resells such tickets shall not be permitted to recoup funds greater than the combined face value of the ticket, tax, and the authorized service fee. This service fee may not exceed three dollars ($3.00) for each ticket except that a promoter or operator of the property where the event is to be held and a ticket sales agency may agree in writing on a reasonable service fee greater than three dollars ($3.00) for the first sale of tickets by the ticket sales agent. This service fee may be a pre-established amount per ticket or a percentage of each ticket. The existence of the service fee shall be made known to the public by printing or writing the amount of the fee on the tickets which are printed for the event. Any person, firm or corporation which sells or offers to sell a ticket for a price greater than the price permitted by this section or as permitted by G.S. 14-344.1 shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1941, c. 180; 1969, c. 1224, s. 8; 1977, c. 9; 1979, c. 909; 1981, c. 36; 1985, c. 434; 1991, c. 165, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 232; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2008-158, ss. 3, 4; 2009-255, s. 1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2013 · leading case: Hill v. StubHub, Inc., 727 S.E.2d 550 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hill v. StubHub, Inc., 727 S.E.2d 550 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 38× “Hill with respect to their claim that Defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices by violating the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-344 . On appeal, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ “ticket scalping” claim is barred by 47 U.”

Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. 2013). · cites it 6× “The majority does not definitively bar future plaintiffs from arguing that excessive pricing constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice, and correctly so.”

Roberts v. Swain, 487 S.E.2d 760 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “*722 There is also no record evidence showing plaintiffs actions could reasonably have been prohibited by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-344 , the “scalping” statute.”

Bourgeois v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 59 A.3d 509 (Md. 2013). “140 § 185D (Massachusetts); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-344 (North Carolina); 815 ILCS 414/1.”

Hill v. Stubhub, Inc., 2011 NCBC 7 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2011). · cites it 12× “§ 230 , N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-344 , and N.C. Gen. Stat.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.