California Resale Cap Taking A Turn

A live Nation-backed California bill aimed at capping concert ticket resale prices, but it could require more than what it says. AB 1720, it would prohibit concert tickets from being resold for more than the original ticket price, plus 10%, inclusive of fees. But the Assembly Appropriations Committee highlighted a key issue: the cost of getting it done. By establishing new requirements for ticket sellers, resellers, and marketplaces, AB 1720 would create additional grounds for the California DOJ to operate, costing them around “the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually at a minimum” to carry out the work. The court could also face an unknown but potentially significant workload pressure from new cases and issues. They pointed out that operating a courtroom typically costs 1,000/hr.

With both of these issues in play, California taxpayers could be asked/required to help fund the enforcement of a resale cap. The structure of the bill sits at the top of the debate, not addressing dynamic pricing, platinum pricing, VIP packaging, inventory disclosure, holdbacks, or other primary-market practices that can drive up face-value ticket prices before tickets ever reach resale. Instead, it is focusing on secondary-market activity, capping what independent resellers and marketplaces can charge while leaving everything else not affected.

AB 1720 focuses solely on concerts and entertainment events by exempting sports tickets, which critics say conveniently protects the areas where Live Nation and Ticketmaster hold the most control. Supporters argue the bill would protect consumers by limiting large‑scale reselling and reducing inflated markups, claiming it would return access to fans. Opponents counter that it won’t actually lower prices because it doesn’t touch the initial face value, which primary sellers can already raise through dynamic pricing, VIP packages, and other tactics.

A resale cap only helps if the original price is stable, and in today’s market, it isn’t. Critics warn the bill could shrink independent resale options and further consolidate power within Ticketmaster’s ecosystem, which already controls both primary and secondary channels. With AB 1720 headed to the May 14 suspense hearing, lawmakers must decide whether enforcing a resale cap, without addressing primary‑market pricing, truly protects consumers or simply strengthens dominant industry players.