Ticket Tussle in California: What’s Behind the Resale Battle?

The collapse of AB 1720, a proposed California bill aimed at capping concert ticket resale prices, has left fans and artists wondering if the tide is turning against inflated secondary ticketing. Some hail this development as a victory for the free market, while others see it as a missed opportunity to rein in predators who prey on unsuspecting consumers.

The stakes are high: StubHub’s massive lobbying efforts, totaling $3.4 million this year alone, demonstrate how seriously these companies take their interests. However, California lawmakers struggle to find common ground, and it’s worth examining why ticket resale has become a contentious issue.

At its core, AB 1720 aimed to address the concentration of ticket buying power in the hands of large resellers and secondary marketplaces. By capping prices at 10 percent above face value, proponents argued that the bill would prevent extreme markups – sky-high prices that leave fans feeling gouged. Critics countered that such measures might simply drive the problem underground.

The complex web of interests at play likely contributed to the bill’s failure. Large venues and event promoters tend to oppose price caps because they rely on ticket revenue to stay afloat, and maintaining flexibility – and profit margins – is crucial in an increasingly competitive market. Smaller venues and independent promoters might see price caps as a lifeline, shielding them from predatory practices.

The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), which backed AB 1720, has long highlighted the disproportionate impact of secondary ticketing on small businesses and local economies. Industry insiders note that these mom-and-pop shops often compete with well-funded resellers who can absorb losses – a dynamic that perpetuates inequality in the market.

Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., have passed similar price cap bills, recognizing the need for greater transparency and regulation in ticket resale. While these measures may not be perfect, they represent a step toward addressing underlying issues driving this problem.

The failure of AB 1720 has sparked renewed debate about government’s role in regulating secondary ticketing. Some argue that price caps are an overreach, stifling innovation and consumer choice. Others see it as necessary to protect consumers from exploitation.

As the battle for ticket resale regulation continues, one thing is clear: California lawmakers will face pressure to revisit this issue. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey has introduced a price cap bill into her state’s supplemental spending plan – a move that could signal new momentum.

Assembly member Matt Haney remains committed to pushing for solutions that “put tickets back in the hands of the people they were intended for.” It’s uncertain whether future iterations of AB 1720 will be more successful, but one thing is clear: the ticket resale debate has exposed deep fault lines within the entertainment industry.

Ultimately, this isn’t just a question of free market vs. regulation; it’s about who gets to benefit from the massive profits generated by concert ticket sales. As fans and artists demand change, the conversation around secondary ticketing will only grow more complex – and contentious.