2023-08-15 21:43:45
Music festivals are back and in the spotlight this summer. There have been cancellations and complaints for which Facua-Consumers in Action and OCU (Organization of Consumers and Users) define as “abusive clauses”: not allowing water and drink to enter their premises, establishing bracelets as the only method of payment cashless, charge to be able to recover the excess money from these, impose a minimum amount to proceed with the return and force amounts of up to 25 euros to be paid for being able to leave and return to the venues.
The alternative to macrofestivals already exists: “Take advantage of daylight and limit the capacity to 350 people”
Further
These operations culminated earlier this month with a historic decision by the Ministry of Consumption: to open a file for the first time on a festival –the Reggaeton Beach Festival– for prohibiting entry with food and drink. The context is complex because, despite the fact that there is a state legal framework in this regard, the powers are transferred to the autonomous communities, in such a way that in each one the rules are different. Facua and OCU base their arguments on the General Law for the Defense of Consumers and Users, and in their defense the main activity of this type of event is the development of a musical show and not the hospitality industry.
However, Belén Álvarez, a lawyer for Gabeiras-Asociados and the FMA-Association of Music Festivals, explains to this newspaper that the characteristics of these macro-concerts, which last several days, mean that “gastronomy is also a fundamental element.” She also defends that they are “private” in nature and are not an “essential service” such as health or education: “If there are places where they give me conditions that I do not agree with, what I do is not go. As long as they warn, notify, notify and inform”. And she insists on maintaining that they are not committing any illegality.
Is it legal to deny entry to food and drink festivals?
Despite the media noise generated by this topic, the reality is that there are numerous arguments to consider that it is legal. FACUA and OCU consider that this prohibition is abusive, referring to a law, two consultations and a judicial resolution focused on movie theaters. The three references are linked to an area completely foreign to live music festivals and that present very different characteristics.
Music festivals are events that offer, over several days, both music and an amalgamation of different cultural and gastronomic activities, which are part of the content that motivates the purchase of tickets by the public. The experience goes beyond attending a live concert for a few hours. What’s more, with the current boom in gastronomy, there is a clear tendency for festivals to promote the fusion between music and good food and drink, with the most varied proposals. Therefore, these services are inherent to its celebration.
This prohibition is also justified by the fact that the organizer of a festival must implement all those measures that are necessary to guarantee safety and hygiene -including food safety-, as well as to control the consumption of alcoholic beverages by part of minors and, preventing entry with food and drink, can be a mechanism for achieving both objectives.
And couldn’t you simply control that alcoholic beverages are not introduced?
A minor can enter with orange juice, and what is actually in the bottle is alcohol. It is impossible to find out. As for water, in many festivals drinking water is offered through fountains or similar systems. Normally you can go out and come in, you can go elsewhere to consume. Therefore, it cannot be understood that these festivals are imposing the obligation to purchase food and drink inside.
Regarding security, promoters have a lot of responsibility. If with this there is already a lot of negative news, imagine if something happens and it jumps out that there has been a poisoning. Food may be spoiled and cause a problem. For sanitary reasons, it is also justified.
But if it was only the food of one person bringing their sandwich from outside the venue, and not all the sandwiches sold at a stall that were spoiled, why would the festival be blamed?
It is the sum of everything. There is a state law, the regulation of which is transferred to the autonomous communities, which have established their respective regulations, in which they refer, among other matters, to the right of admission, consisting of the faculty of the organizer of an event to determine the conditions of access. Inside this, they are allowed to limit access with food and drink.
In many of the issues that are addressed by their respective standards, there is a lack of coordination between them, which we believe should be reviewed. Dialogue on public performances between the different autonomies should be encouraged, so that all of them share their respective experiences, in order to adapt the regulation to the characteristics of cultural events in a harmonized manner, respecting of course the autonomy of each of them.
The prices inside the festivals are usually significantly more expensive than what can be purchased outside. Shouldn’t this make the conditions more flexible?
You have to remember that a festival is one more private space. The promoter is free to decide how he wants to organize it, it is not a school or healthcare, it is not an essential service. If what he does is create a space in which there are several main activities and you don’t like it, you don’t go. If you go to a festival and you think that what’s inside is expensive, you go to your car or to a restaurant in the area.
You buy a ticket with some conditions. If you don’t like it, you can go to another. The promoter is informing you and giving you alternatives. If we compare it with the cinema, it is cheaper to stay at home watching Netflix, but you go to a cinema. Is the consumer going to file a complaint for this reason, because it is very expensive to see the film in the cinema? The promoter has a right of admission that is recognized by law.
You buy a ticket with some conditions. If you don’t like it, you can go to another festival
Belén Álvarez — Lawyer
There are festivals, like Reggaeton Beach, which impose paying 25 euros to be able to enter and leave the premises. Should this be regularized at least?
I don’t know the specific case. The norm establishes that the promoter can establish conditions within his right of admission. If it requires you to pay 25 euros, it seems super justified to me that you go to listen to the groups that play at that festival at another. If they give me conditions that I don’t agree with, what I do is not go. As long as they warn, notify, notify and inform.
Since this is a debate that goes back a long way, why is it reopened every summer?
In recent years, live music festivals have had considerable growth both nationally and internationally and have positioned themselves as a clearly growing and strategic sector. And it is precisely their important position that causes debate and controversy to be generated around them, in my opinion, not always justified, since from a legal point of view, there are sufficient legal arguments to consider that the ban on entry with food and Drinking at a festival is legal and not abusive.
From a legal point of view, there are sufficient legal arguments to consider that the ban on entry with food and drink at a festival is legal and not abusive
Belén Álvarez — Lawyer
To what extent can the fact that, for the first time, the Ministry of Consumption has opened a disciplinary file?
The opening of a disciplinary file does not set any precedent. It involves the launching of an administrative procedure in which the promoter can provide his defense arguments and the corresponding evidence. This procedure can conclude with an administrative resolution, which can be appealed before the courts of justice. Therefore, only a firm resolution issued by a court of justice can set a precedent. And, as we have explained, the reality is that there are sufficient legal arguments to consider that the ban on entry with food and drink at a festival is legal and not abusive.
Facua and OCU also consider “abusive” clauses the imposition of payment with bracelets cashless, Is there any defense against this argument? Are they legal?
Payment with bracelets cashless, Precisely because of the benefits it offers, it is used more and more frequently, not only in Spain, but internationally. In musical events with a large influx of public, such as festivals, it is logical that this type of payment system is used, not only for hygienic reasons –fundamental after the global pandemic that we have just suffered–, but also for its ability to expedite payment processes and for allowing a high degree of control and traceability of transactions. Well, you have to think that a multitude of people and numerous providers are concentrated in this type of event and to control payment flows this technology is beneficial.
why the system cashless Is it faster than paying by card, which doesn’t mean waiting in a second queue to recharge the wristbands?
The credit card depends on the connection of the bank, you save that there is a better connection if there are problems with the dataphones.
What happens with the fact that you have to pay to get the excess money back and that minimum amounts of up to three euros are imposed?
In the payment processes through this system, banking entities are involved which, as in the case of other operations, charge management fees. The limitations for the return of excess money have to do with the limitations set by the bank itself.
#experience #concert