California Ticketing Bills Progress, But Lawmakers Show Increasing Concern Over Proposed Price Cap

Both measures remain alive ahead of a key Senate fiscal deadline, but AB 1720 now faces a formal Department of Finance objection and an expanding record of questions about whether its 10% resale cap would help consumers.

California’s two leading ticketing bills continued moving through the Legislature this week, though their latest reviews underscored a widening sentiment divide from legislators. One has found a smooth, largely supportive path for its targeted consumer-protection legislation, while the other has seen mounting concerns surrounding a proposed price cap that focuses strictly on resale markets.

AB 1349, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan’s measure targeting speculative ticket sales, bots and deceptive practices, has passed each Senate policy committee unanimously. AB 1720, Assemblymember Matt Haney’s proposal to cap ticket resale prices and marketplace fees at 10% above their original value, has also survived each vote—but amid increasingly pointed questions about its cost, scope, enforceability and potential impact on competition.

Both bills were placed on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Suspense File on August 3, a routine step for measures with potentially significant state costs. The committee is expected to release or hold them at its August 13 hearing, one day before the deadline for fiscal committees to send legislation to the Senate floor.

Both measures have also received meaningful support from Live Nation and the Fix the Tix coalition. In February, Live Nation endorsed AB 1720 while its public text was still a placeholder. NIVA, a central Fix the Tix participant, later said it was “proud to help architect” both bills. Haney has said Live Nation was not involved in developing AB 1720 and that artists and venues drove the proposal, though the package’s legislative priorities closely track the “FAIR Ticketing” agenda promoted by the entertainment giant.

Opponents have pushed back against the prospect of California taxpayers funding enforcement of a resale price cap backed by Live Nation, particularly after a federal jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable on all monopolization counts earlier this year. They question whether resale-specific price controls that leave dynamic pricing, inventory holdbacks and other primary-market practices untouched would produce lower prices for consumers—concerns increasingly echoed by lawmakers and Senate committee analyses as the bill has advanced.

Cost Warning Becomes a Formal Objection to Price Cap Bill

Assembly fiscal analysis in May warned that over the taxpayer cost required to fund a new enforcement regime necessary for the proposed price caps, with Department of Justice expenses then estimated in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually at a minimum.

The Senate’s estimate is substantially more concrete. DOJ now projects costs of $1.6 million in fiscal year 2026–27, followed by $1 million the next year, $812,000 in 2028–29 and $582,000 annually thereafter. The analysis also identifies unknown court expenses and potentially significant trial-court pressures.

At the August 3 hearing, the Department of Finance formally opposed AB 1720 based on those costs before the committee moved it to suspense without objection.

AB 1720 has continued to advance, passing the Assembly 49–16 before clearing three Senate policy committees by votes of 6–2, 5–2 and 8–4.

But the analyses accompanying those votes have repeatedly questioned its core mechanism.

The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee noted that the bill does not explain why lawmakers selected a 10% limit or show that the figure is supported by empirical research, market analysis or consumer-harm data.

Staff also questioned whether a resale-only cap addresses affordability when prices can change before resale through dynamic pricing, presales, premium programs, inventory allocations and holdbacks.

AB 1720 would not restrict those practices, leaving the primary market free to capture more of what buyers are willing to pay.

That concern tracks the questions raised in TicketNews’ coverage after AB 1720 cleared its first committee: whether restricting one of the few competitive areas of ticketing could benefit the dominant primary platform while failing to address how initial prices and supply are controlled.

Senate Privacy Committee Chair Christopher Cabaldon voiced similar concerns during the bill’s hearing. He declined to recommend passage, saying the economic research he reviewed did not clearly show that caps reduce what fans pay overall and warning that the policy could be disabling for some independent resale providers.

Narrowing the Bill Creates Uneven Protections

AB 1720 was narrowed in the Assembly to apply principally to events at independent venues with capacities of 3,000 or fewer, along with certain nonprofit venues. Professional sports, collegiate and amateur athletics, season-ticket resales, the World Cup, Olympics and other international athletic events are exempt.

The changes helped the bill advance but also produced a central inconsistency identified by Senate staff.

If a 10% cap is necessary to protect buyers from excessive resale prices, why should it apply mainly to smaller independent-venue events while excluding stadium concerts, major sports and many of the highest-demand tickets in the market?

The Senate Business analysis questioned whether venue capacity is an appropriate proxy for consumer harm. The Senate Privacy Committee described the restricted reach as a “harsh limitation,” noting that it excludes many events where consumers are most likely to encounter the practices cited by supporters as justification for a cap.

The result would be an enforcement program costing more than $1 million in its first year while applying to only a fraction of California’s live-event market.

Competition and Compliance Questions Persist

Ticketmaster operates as both the dominant primary ticketing provider and a major resale platform.

Independent marketplaces may not have access to the original transaction data needed to verify compliance, particularly when similar seats are sold at different prices through dynamic pricing, presales or VIP packages. Ticketmaster, as the original seller for much of the market, already possesses that information.

Senate Judiciary gave substantial attention to arguments that AB 1720 could create compliance burdens for Ticketmaster’s resale competitors that the dominant primary seller would be better positioned to satisfy.

Opponents also warn that above-cap sales could migrate to social media, private messages or cash transactions without marketplace guarantees or fraud monitoring. Senate analyses acknowledged that enforcement challenge.

Supporters—including artist groups, independent venues, Live Nation and organizations aligned through Fix the Tix—argue that industrial resellers acquire tickets without contributing to events and capture money that should remain with artists, venues and local businesses. They contend that caps would reduce speculative purchasing while preserving ordinary fan-to-fan resale.

AB 1349 Takes a Less Divisive Route

AB 1349 has followed a different trajectory after substantial Senate amendments narrowed it toward specific conduct.

The bill now targets tickets sold without possession or authorization, speculative listings, bots and other methods used to evade purchase limits, along with websites that mislead buyers about whether they are dealing with an official source.

The revised measure passed the Senate Business, Privacy and Judiciary committees unanimously. DOJ reported that it does not expect significant administrative costs, although courts could face unknown enforcement expenses. The Department of Finance did not announce opposition during the August 3 presentation.

Both bills therefore remain alive, but they enter the suspense decision in different positions.

AB 1349 has gained support by narrowing its focus to speculative sales, technological circumvention and deceptive conduct. AB 1720 continues progressing despite a formal fiscal objection and a growing committee record questioning whether its limited price cap would lower consumer costs, weaken competitive resale options or justify the expense required to enforce it.

The August 13 suspense hearing will determine whether either approach advances to a vote from the full Senate.