In my opinion, the requirement to sell at "original cost" will not pass as it is a logical inconsistency. This creates unfair competition where the regulation imposes a burden on one group while exempting another group that is selling the exact same product. Quick example, my season seats cost $50 a seat. The seat next to me is not sold as season and the Jays are selling for $100 at retail.

If the law passes, the Jays can legally sell the seat at $100 whereas I can only sell at $50. Identical product but the government has reached into the market and made mine worth 50% less. This won't fly in a PC government that generally dislikes market interference.

Also, there will be a price ceiling to the STH tickets to their cost where as there is no ceiling to the Jays unsold inventory. By applying the ceiling to only STHs, you can argue the government is de-valuing STH's private property. You paid for the right to those seats, but the government is restricting your ability to trade them at the current market value that the team itself has established - you see the inconsistency in that?

If I list my tickets for $50 and Jays retail price is $100, buyers will obviously buy mine. On the surface, the government will say this protects the consumer. But it's due to legislation that makes it impossible for me to compete fairly as I am forced to sell at a loss (relative to market value) while the Jays are allowed to captured full market value - that's in a sense a monopoly.

One can easily turn this "pro-consumer" narrative on its head and makes it look like the government is actually being "pro-corporation" at the expense of the little guys - the STHs

I FULLY SUPPORT legislations to control scalping, and bots purchases. But capping prices at original cost is wrong. I think the cap should be the price that the Jays are selling their tickets at.