The California State Assembly Judiciary Committee voted to pass AB 13 49 as amended and referred the measure to the Appropriations Committee after a round of testimony from artists, nonprofit arts organizations, live-venue operators and ticket-resale platforms.

The bill, presented to the committee by Assemblymember Brian, would prohibit “speculative ticketing” — listing tickets for resale before the seller owns them or has a contractual right to sell them — and would require secondary sellers and resale platforms to disclose seat locations, retain sales records and provide refunds when transactions cannot be fulfilled. The author told the committee the measure also would ban deceptive websites that impersonate official sellers and would increase penalties for violators.

Supporters said speculative listings mislead consumers and harm smaller arts organizations. “This harmful practice is known as speculative ticketing and is inherently anti-consumer,” the author said, explaining that fans can buy listings that sellers do not yet possess. Julie Baker, chief executive officer of California Arts Advocates, told the committee that nonprofit venues often use basic CRM systems for memberships and RSVPs and nonetheless are hit by fraudulent secondary listings that use their names and logos. Quoting a local CEO, Baker said the organization was charged processing fees after resellers claimed fraudulent charges and sold tickets at ‘‘five times the value.’’

Artist and witness James Fauntleroy said AB 13 49 would protect “thousands of people employed in venues” who can be affected when resale markets create negative public perceptions of shows. “Live performances are a critical part of our expression, and they deserve to be protected from deceptive practices like spec ticketing,” he said.

Opponents and some platforms said they support preventing fraud but raised implementation concerns. Robert Harrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, told the committee that congressional legislation — which the U.S. House passed this week — and an ongoing Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit are relevant to industry structure and that federal language may be superior on some points. “409 to 15, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the ticket act,” Harrell said, and he urged continued coordination with those federal efforts.

Representatives of resale platforms said they want to prevent fraudulent speculative listings but warned the bill’s definitions and certain provisions could restrict legitimate ticket transfers and run afoul of terms set by primary sellers. “We have every incentive to solve this issue and you have our commitment to find language that does that,” Jamie Minor of StubHub said, while stating StubHub opposed the bill in its current form because of what the company characterized as ‘‘terms and conditions’’ problems.

Committee members praised the consumer-protection intent but acknowledged open issues. The chair framed the dispute between large industry players as risking harm to smaller venues, saying, “when elephants fight, it’s the grass that dies,” and multiple members urged the author to continue negotiations with sports teams and resale platforms on implementation details.

The committee’s action was recorded as a motion to pass the measure as amended and refer it to the Appropriations Committee; the motion carried and multiple members voted aye. The author and supporters said they will continue discussions with stakeholders to address transfer and terms-and-conditions concerns before the bill reaches the Appropriations Committee.

Votes at a glance: AB 13 49 — Passed as amended and referred to Appropriations.