The California State Assembly Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to pass AB 13 49, advancing the bill, as amended, to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill would ban "speculative ticketing," require sellers on secondary marketplaces to own or have a contractual right to tickets before listing them, require platforms to disclose seat locations and keep records needed to issue refunds, and ban fake websites that impersonate official event sellers.

The bill's author, Assemblymember Bridal, told the committee AB 13 49 "prohibits speculative ticketing and requires ticket sellers to own, possess, or have a contractual right to sell the tickets before listing them." Bridal said the measure is intended to stop sellers from listing tickets they do not have — often at steep markups — and leaving fans without seats when events occur.

Supporters told the committee the bill is aimed at protecting consumers, artists and small venues. Julie Baker, chief executive officer of California Arts Advocates, said secondary platforms "are profiting from our productions without contributing to the shows themselves" and that deceptive listings "confuse ticket buyers, harm the reputations of our organizations and divert crucial revenue away from community arts programs." Baker said many nonprofit venues lack traditional ticketing systems and nonetheless face fraudulent secondary listings that use their names and logos to mislead the public.

Recording artist and songwriter James Fauntleroy, who testified in support, described live performance as a shared experience that deserves protection from deceptive practices. "Live performances are a critical part of our expression, and they deserve to be protected from deceptive practices like spec ticketing," Fauntleroy said, adding that the practice harms thousands of workers connected to live events.

Opponents said they share the bill's concern about speculative listings but warned the draft language raises technical problems that could limit legitimate ticket transfers or conflict with existing terms and conditions. Robert Harrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, praised efforts to address speculative listings but urged the author to continue working with stakeholders and pointed to related federal activity, saying the U.S. House passed the "Ticket Act" this week by a vote of 409 to 15 and noting a Department of Justice lawsuit affecting the industry.

Representatives of large resale platforms and marketplaces also urged changes. Jamie Minor, representing StubHub, said, "No person should sell a ticket they never purchased or were given," but added StubHub must oppose the bill in its current form because its drafting could restrict consumers' ability to transfer tickets and could interact poorly with ticketing terms and conditions used by primary sellers. SeatGeek and TickPick noted opposition unless amendments are made; several major teams and promoters said they support the concept but flagged implementation issues under discussion with the author's office.

Committee members from both parties expressed interest in consumer protection while also noting the need to avoid unintended consequences. Multiple members urged the author to continue negotiations with venues, platforms, and sports teams to address concerns about season tickets, transfer restrictions and contractual terms some primary sellers impose on customers.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded a motion and second and approved AB 13 49, as amended, sending it to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Several members voiced support on the record during roll call, including Assemblymembers Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stephanie and Zibur. The clerk announced the motion "passes amended to appropriations." The committee also took note of ongoing federal litigation and the recently passed U.S. House Ticket Act during the discussion.

Next steps: With committee approval, AB 13 49 will be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The author and stakeholders indicated negotiations over technical language will continue, particularly on questions about ticket transfers, platforms' recordkeeping, and how the bill interacts with contractual terms used by primary sellers.