California lawmakers are moving two bills targeting ticket resale prices, backed by Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, which a federal jury found this week acted illegally as a monopoly.
The legislation advances just days after that New York verdict, putting Sacramento in an awkward spot. Democratic Assemblymember Issac Bryan of Culver City and Democratic Assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying a bill they say would protect concertgoers from predatory resale practices. One measure caps how much a reseller can mark up a ticket above its original face value. The other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t actually own yet, a practice sometimes called “speculative ticketing.”
Both bills have Live Nation’s backing.
That’s the part making consumer advocates nervous. The same company that a federal jury in New York found to have illegally acted as a monopoly is now lending its political support to California legislation that would reshape the resale market its main competitors operate in. California Attorney General Rob Bonta was among the attorneys general who sued Live Nation two years ago and continued pursuing the case even after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now waiting on penalties from that verdict.
The price stories driving the legislation are easy to understand. SZA tickets at Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 each. Sam Smith tickets at the newly renovated Castro Theater in San Francisco launched at $120 and were quickly resold by scalpers for upward of $600. Bruno Mars tickets hit $2,000 on the resale market. Those numbers caught lawmakers’ attention, and both bills have moved through the Legislature with little resistance so far.
Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying hard against the measures, which tells you something about who they think benefits. Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, told CalMatters that “passing laws that hand the Ticketmaster monopoly more power and don’t actually make tickets more affordable is the last thing California’s leaders should do.”
Supporters of the bills push back on that framing. Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, said the measures would regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging ticket exchanges at face value or below. Parker argues the bills have nothing to do with the antitrust case and are squarely focused on consumer protection.
Not everyone buying that argument. Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the Legislature is missing the point.
“The state Legislature should really be standing up for consumers instead of advancing bills that are there to help a monopoly that has been caught on record calling its fans stupid and has bragged about robbing them blind,” Barrera said.
That framing, blunt as it is, captures the central tension here. Both sides claim to be protecting the fan. Live Nation and its allies say caps and anti-speculation rules will clean up a chaotic secondary market that harms buyers. Opponents say the rules will hand Ticketmaster tighter control over which platforms can sell tickets and on what terms, squeezing out competitors who currently give fans more options, even if those options come with markups.
California has tried to address ticket pricing before, and the resale market has consistently outrun state rules. The bills don’t touch the primary market, meaning the face-value prices that Live Nation and venue operators set initially. A cap on resale markups does nothing if the face value starts high. A $120 ticket resold at $600 is a problem, but so is a $300 ticket that was never affordable to begin with, and neither bill addresses that.
What the Legislature does next will matter well beyond Sacramento. California is the largest live-entertainment market in the country, home to arenas, amphitheaters, and festival venues stretching from San Diego up through the Bay Area and into Sacramento. Rules set here tend to influence how companies structure their national operations. Live Nation, facing federal penalties and a damaged reputation after the antitrust verdict, has every incentive to get ahead of regulation it can help write.
Bryan and Haney both say the bills protect fans. Live Nation says the same. The National Independent Venue Association agrees. That much alignment between a company just found to be a monopoly and the legislation it supports is exactly what critics like Barrera say consumers should watch carefully.