Dynamic pricing has changed the way industries such as aviation and hospitality sell, a field with decades of management literature behind it, as reflected in Harvard Business Review's pricing strategy archive, and it is now making its way into the events sector. This strategy adjusts ticket costs according to real-time demand. What has changed since 2025 isn't the technique: it's the legal framework being written on top of it, in both Spain and the UK.
What is dynamic pricing?
Dynamic pricing is a pricing model that automatically adjusts the cost of tickets based on multiple factors: current demand, sales velocity, time remaining until the event, and ticket availability. Unlike the traditional fixed-price model, it captures the real value attendees are willing to pay at any given moment.
Until now, that definition came from a textbook. Since February 2026, there has been a legal definition going through parliamentary process. The CNMC report IPN/CNMC/053/25, dated 6 February 2026, reproduces the new Article 59 bis.3.e) of the consolidated General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users, which defines dynamic pricing as a "precio cuyo importe se determina o modifica de forma automatizada y en tiempo real a partir de variables externas y objetivas ajenas al consumidor individual, tales como las condiciones de oferta y demanda, la disponibilidad del bien o servicio, los costes de mercado, el momento de contratación o factores comparables" (a "price whose amount is determined or modified automatically and in real time based on external and objective variables unrelated to the individual consumer, such as supply and demand conditions, availability of the goods or service, market costs, timing of the transaction, or comparable factors").
The closing phrase of the definition is what decides which regime your engine falls under: "siempre que dichas variaciones no se basen en el perfil, características personales o comportamiento individual del consumidor" (as long as such variations are not based on the profile, personal characteristics or individual behaviour of the consumer).
How does dynamic pricing differ from personalised pricing?
In the source of the data. Dynamic pricing looks at the market; personalised pricing looks at the buyer. An engine that raises the price because only 200 of 3,000 tickets remain with two weeks to go is dynamic. One that shows a different amount depending on that specific person's purchase history, device or browsing behaviour is personalised, and that already has regulation in force, not merely pending.
The same CNMC report sets out the wording of Article 97.1.f) of the consolidated text, which for personalised pricing requires disclosure "que el precio ha sido personalizado sobre la base de una toma de decisiones automatizada, que debe mantenerse invariable durante todo el proceso de compra, así como los parámetros que se han tenido en cuenta para llevar a cabo tal personalización" (that the price has been personalised on the basis of automated decision-making, which must remain unchanged throughout the purchase process, along with the parameters taken into account to carry out that personalisation). It also adds a substantive limit: those parameters "en ningún caso, podrán ser discriminatorios ni explotar situaciones de urgencia o necesidad" (may under no circumstances be discriminatory or exploit situations of urgency or need).
| Dynamic pricing | Personalised pricing | |
|---|---|---|
| What it depends on | External variables: supply, demand, availability, timing of purchase | The buyer's profile, personal characteristics or behaviour |
| What would need to be published | Minimum price, maximum price and full history since the start of sales | That the price is personalised and the parameters used |
| During the purchase process | The price of that purchase could not change | Must remain unchanged |
| Status of the law | Draft Sustainable Consumption Bill, in progress | Information obligation already set out in Article 97.1.f) TRLGDCU |
The practical consequence is one of design, not wording. If your segmentation uses any signal about the individual buyer, you're not in the regime you thought you were. It's worth reviewing this before switching the engine on, not once the complaint arrives.
What benefits does it offer organisers?
Implementing a dynamic pricing strategy offers advantages for event organisers. None of them is automatic: they depend on there being enough demand for the price to have room to move.
- Maximising revenue by capturing consumer surplus
- Better cash flow management with sales spread more evenly over time
- Natural incentives for early purchasing
- Valuable data on buyer behaviour and preferences
- Reduced impact of speculative resale
It's worth being precise on this last point, because it's the argument repeated most often and the one that holds up least well. What a dynamic pricing system does is bring the primary price closer to what the market would pay, narrowing the reseller's margin. It doesn't eliminate resale: Article 27.6 of the Unfair Competition Law 3/1991 remains the provision that bans reselling tickets acquired "empleando medios automatizados para sortear cualquier límite impuesto al número de entradas que puede adquirir cada persona" (using automated means to circumvent any limit imposed on the number of tickets a person may purchase). Dynamic pricing and bot control are two different tools for two different problems.
What dynamic pricing models exist?
There are different approaches to implementing dynamic pricing, ranging from the simplest to the most sophisticated.
- Automated early bird: prices that rise progressively as the event approaches
- Inventory-based: the price increases as fewer tickets remain available
- Demand-based: algorithms that detect spikes in interest and adjust prices accordingly
- Hybrid: a combination of the above with custom rules set by the organiser
There's a fifth model that's often confused with dynamic pricing but isn't: predefined price tiers. These are steps set in advance that sell out by allocation, not by algorithm. The distinction matters because it's exactly what separated a consumer investigation in the UK from a ban that never materialised, as the next section shows.
What information obligations is Spanish law preparing?
Transparency may stop being a mere recommendation. The draft Sustainable Consumption Bill reviewed by the CNMC in February 2026 would require disclosure that a dynamic pricing system is in use, the minimum and maximum prices on offer, and its full history from the start of sales; once a purchase has begun, the price could not change. We covered the text in what the dynamic pricing draft bill requires organisers to publish. It's still a draft bill, but designing to that standard now saves you from rebuilding the flow later.
Three details in the text that translate into real work, and that haven't been widely reported:
Disclosure is required product by product. The new unfair practice under Article 27.10 of the Unfair Competition Law, as worded in the text reproduced by the CNMC, would penalise using the system "sin informar previamente al consumidor de la utilización de dicho sistema para el mismo producto en la misma fecha" (without informing the consumer in advance of the use of such a system for the same product on the same date). A general clause in the terms of sale isn't enough: disclosure is required by ticket type and by event.
The ceiling is decided in advance, not on the fly. Publishing the maximum price means it has to be set before sales open and stood by. It is possible to go below the announced minimum, as a promotion or discount; going above the maximum is not.
The history can't be reconstructed after the fact. The obligation covers the price history "desde el inicio de la comercialización hasta la fecha de entrega o prestación" (from the start of sales until the date of delivery or performance). If your system doesn't record the price by ticket type with a timestamp from day one, that record simply doesn't exist, and there's no way to manufacture it later.
The CNMC, for its part, isn't applauding the measure: it asks that the regulation "preserve la flexibilidad propia de estos sistemas como herramienta competitiva" (preserve the flexibility inherent to these systems as a competitive tool) and notes that the wording "no concreta de manera suficiente en qué debe consistir dicha información" (does not sufficiently specify what that information should consist of). The text may change before it reaches Congress. What won't change is that the price record needs to exist from day one of sales.
What has happened in the UK with tiered pricing?
The UK went through the whole process in just over a year and ended up somewhere different from Spain. The Competition and Markets Authority opened an investigation on 5 September 2024 into Ticketmaster's sale of Oasis tickets. The outcome was published on 25 September 2025, and it's worth reading closely, because it dismantles the prevailing narrative.
The regulator found no evidence of real-time algorithmic pricing: on that hypothesis, the CMA states it "has not found evidence that this was the case". What it did find were two information problems. First, that people waiting in the queue weren't told standing tickets were being sold at two different prices, or that the price would jump as soon as the cheaper ones sold out. Second, that "platinum" tickets were sold at almost 2.5 times the price of "standard" ones without sufficiently explaining that they offered no additional benefit over standard tickets in the same area of the venue.
Ticketmaster signed commitments on 15 September 2025, and the case file summarises them: giving buyers 24 hours' notice if a tiered pricing system is going to be used, providing more information about prices during the online queue, not using misleading ticket labels, and reporting periodically to the CMA for two years.
The political conclusion came two months later. In its response to the call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector, dated 19 November 2025 and built on 105 submissions, the British government concluded that it would not bring forward new legislative proposals on pricing practices in live events, relying instead on existing consumer law, the CMA's powers, and the sector's self-regulation.
Both cases point to the same conclusion, and it's ours, not the regulators': what gets penalised isn't moving the price, it's not disclosing that it moves. Spain wants to solve this with an obligation to publish the entire price curve; the UK, with transparency cases built on the law it already has. An organiser who gives advance notice, labels tickets unambiguously, and doesn't change the price mid-purchase complies under both frameworks.
What should be considered when implementing it?
Although dynamic pricing offers advantages, there are factors to bear in mind for a successful implementation.
- Transparency: communicate clearly that prices may vary
- Limits: set minimum and maximum prices to avoid extremes
- Segmentation: consider keeping fixed prices for certain groups (students, members)
- Monitoring: review performance regularly through your metrics dashboard and adjust parameters
- User experience: make sure the purchase process stays simple
Two points from the case files and draft texts discussed above need to be added to that list. The first is labelling: if you sell named categories — preferred, platinum, premium — the label has to describe a real advantage over the others, or it becomes the problem the CMA identified in the Oasis case. The second is mid-purchase repricing: an expiring cart reservation, a user going back a step, a failed payment that's retried, and a tier change while someone is in the middle of paying are the four points where a system changes the price unintentionally. Fixing these now is cheap.
Practical example: a music festival
This is a worked example built to illustrate the mechanics, not a measured case or a result you should expect. A festival with capacity for 5,000 people opens at €40 and sets a ceiling of €70. The early bird tier starts at €40, rises in steps as allocation sells out, and in the weeks before the event, with demand concentrated, reaches the maximum. If half the capacity sells at the low tier and the other half at the maximum price, the average revenue per ticket is €55, compared with €40 for a fixed price at the opening tier: 37.5% more under this specific scenario.
That figure depends entirely on the assumptions. Change the split between tiers and the result changes; if capacity doesn't sell out, the maximum price is never reached and the calculation reverses. Before relying on any improvement percentage, ask for the methodology and the sample behind it. On this blog, we don't publish performance figures we can't document.
What is predictable is the effect on the cash flow calendar: sales are spread more evenly across the period and revenue stops being concentrated in the week of the event. That's what dynamic pricing is really good for, before it ever boosts the average ticket price.
Should you use dynamic pricing for your event?
It depends on whether you have demand the price can read. With capacity that doesn't sell out, the engine has nothing to adjust against and adds complexity with no payoff. With concentrated demand, it's worth it. Before switching it on, five checks:
Place your engine in the correct regime. If it uses any signal about the individual buyer, it's personalised pricing, not dynamic, and the obligations are different.
Write down the minimum, maximum and curve before sales open. That's what the draft bill would require and, in practice, it's what stops you deciding the ceiling under pressure.
Check that checkout doesn't change the price mid-purchase. Cart reservation, going back a step, payment retries and tier changes are the four scenarios to test.
Keep a timestamped price history. By ticket type and by event. It cannot be applied retroactively.
Review your category labels. Each commercial name has to correspond to a real, verifiable advantage over the other categories.
If you want to dig deeper into setting the right price for your tickets, the key is finding the right balance for your audience and event type. Dynamic pricing doesn't replace that decision: it executes it.
Sources
- Report on the Draft Sustainable Consumption Bill, IPN/CNMC/053/25 (PDF) — Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission), 6 February 2026.
- The CNMC reviews the forthcoming Sustainable Consumption Law and proposes improvements to strengthen competition — CNMC, 11 March 2026.
- Draft Sustainable Consumption Bill, text submitted for public consultation (PDF) — Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030 (Spanish Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and the 2030 Agenda).
- Draft Sustainable Consumption Bill — public consultation — Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030.
- Law 3/1991, of 10 January, on Unfair Competition (consolidated text) — Boletín Oficial del Estado (Spanish Official State Gazette).
- Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition — BOE, DOUE-L-2024-80326.
- CMA secures changes from Ticketmaster following Oasis tickets investigation — Competition and Markets Authority, 25 September 2025.
- Ticketmaster: consumer protection case — CMA case file, opened on 5 September 2024 and closed on 25 September 2025.
- Government response to the call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector — UK Government, 19 November 2025.
- Pricing Strategy — Harvard Business Review topic archive.