April 19 (UPI) — U.S. Customs and Border Protection is expected to launch a website on Monday to process refund requests for some Trump administration tariffs, although there are limits to which ones will be processed.
The first phase of tariff refunds comes after the Supreme Courtruled in February that President Donald Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to generate revenue by imposing tariffs.
Although Trump decided to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify new tariffs after the Court’s decision, the administration still is required to refund duties collected under the now-nullified tariffs.
CBP has estimated that it owes about $166 billion in refunds, with the agency’s announcement of phase 1 expected to take care of the vast majority of expected claims, NPR reported.
The website is specifically aimed at letting businesses request refunds, and experts have said that consumers are unlikely to be affected by the refunds, CBS News reported.
“[The Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries] is being deployed in phases, and CBP will launch the first phase of CAPE on April 20,” the agency said in an update last week.
“Phase 1 is limited to certain unliquidated entries and certain entries within 80 days of liquidation,” the agency said.
The refunds are linked to lawsuits filed in December by Costco and other companies — more than 50 companies brought filed suit for refunds — asking for duties to be returned to them if the Supreme Court ruled against the administration.
In March, CBP raised concern in court that it could not immediately handle refunding the duties based on 53 million entries from 330,000 importers who had paid tariffs as of March 4.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaks during a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies hearing on the budget for the Department of Health and Human Services in the Rayburn House Office Building near the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Bruno Mars tickets running for $2,000 and ones for SZA costing $600 caught California lawmakers’ attention. They’re advancing two bills targeting the resale market.
Earlier this year, tickets to see SZA perform at the Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 a piece.
In San Francisco, tickets to see Sam Smith at the newly renovated Castro Theater went on sale for $120, only to be quickly snatched up by scalpers and resold for upwards of $600.
Those are some of the stories that California lawmakers are citing as they advance two plans to change the ticketing landscape. One caps the extent to which resellers can mark up the original ticket price while the other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t yet own.
Democratic Assemblymembers Issac Bryan of Culver City and Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying bills that they say would protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive ticket sales.
Both measures are backed by the ticket market’s dominant seller, Beverly Hills-based Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. Its support has some worried that the bills will help the company crush its competitors and jack up prices.
A federal jury in New York this week found that the company illegally acted as a monopoly in a victory for, among others, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who with colleagues in other states sued the company two years ago and kept going after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now awaiting penalties.
Despite these headwinds, the ticket bills are sailing through the Legislature.
Supporters say the legislation has nothing to do with the antitrust case against Live Nation and helps consumers. Opponents disagree.
“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,” said Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights advocacy group.
Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying against the measures, a sign that they view the proposals as a threat to their business.
Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, wrote to CalMatters, stating, “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.”
But Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, argues that they will regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging the face value — or below face value — exchange of tickets.
“Ultimately, that is what these bills will do, in addition to making sure that the tickets are actually real,” he said. “That is a good thing for California consumers. It’s a good thing for artists and it’s a good thing for these small businesses and nonprofits that make up the independent stages across the state.”
A Live Nation spokesperson said in a statement to CalMatters, “The resale lobby constantly tries to change the subject by pointing fingers at Ticketmaster, even though it has less than 25% of the resale market. This has nothing to do with anyone’s monopoly, but rather is about protecting fans from scalpers and the resale sites that cater to them.”
The company has spent roughly $165,000 on lobbying efforts this legislative session, including to support Bryan’s bill.
‘Unlikely allies’
Bryan’s Assembly Bill 1349 would ban the sale of speculative tickets — or tickets that are not in the possession or ownership of the people who list them online. In an April hearing, Bryan said the bill protects consumers from predatory mark ups.
“This bill is so important that, after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together,” Bryan said, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. “In fact, this bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together, brought the National Independent Venue Association and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together.”
Several secondary ticket sellers are fighting the measure, including StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. The three companies have spent roughly $1.1 million dollars on lobbying efforts this legislative session, which included opposition to Bryan’s bill.
People watch fireworks during Bad Bunny’s halftime show from a parking garage outside Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 8, 2026. Photo by Jungho Kim for CalMatters
Opponents including Robert Herrell, executive director for the Consumer Federation of California, argue that the bill strengthens Live Nation Ticketmaster’s grip on the ticketing and live entertainment industry. According to them, the measure would give Live Nation complete control over the ticket even after it has been purchased — meaning, for example, that consumers could lose the ability to sell it or give it away.
“There’s no consumer choice in the matter,” said Herrell. “They can keep people out of shows if they want to. There have been situations where, if you bought a ticket on the secondary market, you’ve been denied entry into a show.” Proponents say Herrell and other opponents are mistaken. They say they are not trying to prevent transferability but rather, they want to protect fans from speculative costs.
“We want those rooms full,” said Ron Gubitz, executive director of Music Artists Coalition, which is co-sponsoring both bills. “So you have to be able to transfer a ticket. We just want it to be in a way that’s safe, trustworthy and not creating this run on the market that exists now.”
Gubitz pointed to a recent Bruno Mars concert, where tickets were on StubHub for $400 to $2,000 before they were on sale through Ticketmaster.
“That’s crazy,” he said. “That’s a speculative ticket that Bryan’s bill is trying to stop. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not fair to anybody, except for the secondary (market). It seems great for them.”
Price caps in a free market
Haney’s Assembly Bill 1720, also known as the California Fans First Act, would put a 10% cap on resale event ticket markups, inclusive of the ticket fees. In other words, a reseller could not charge more than 10% higher than the original ticket price.
In an interview with CalMatters, Haney said artists, independent venues and downtowns are currently being “screwed over and exploited” by scalpers and brokers.
“We can’t allow the status quo to continue if we want to ensure Californians have access to affordable tickets to see their favorite artists or if we want independent venues or the broader landscape of musicians and artists to thrive in our state,” he said.
Haney rejected the idea that his bill would strengthen the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly, saying that the company is one of the biggest operators and profiteers of the secondary ticket market and would therefore be subject to the same restrictions as any other platform or broker.
“I don’t think it’s a free market to allow folks to come in and buy up all these tickets and then create scarcity and then you’re now required to buy your ticket at a much higher price from someone who had nothing to do with the event,” he said. “This is not something we would ever allow for airplane tickets or even dinner reservations.”
The bill has been criticized by opponents like Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at Progressive Policy Institute, who said price caps notoriously distort the market, describing them as “anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-artist.”
“If you shut down the resale market with price caps then guess what? Ticket buyers have no place to go but right back to Ticketmaster,” said Moss. “If (Live Nation) succeed(s) in decimating the resale market, then they steer millions and millions of fans back to their own ticketing platform where they charge monopoly ticket fees and where fans are hostage to their glitchy online platform and all of their data, privacy and security concerns that we always hear about in the news.”
Those concerns didn’t stop the bill from passing out of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism last week with a 6-1 vote. The bill also passed out of the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection on Thursday with a 9-4 vote.
Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow for CalMatters.
NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.
The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.
Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.
The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.
Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.
Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.
“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.
Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.
The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.
Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.
However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.
“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”
Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.
One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.
National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.
“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”
Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.
Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.
The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”
The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.
Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.
“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”
Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”
“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.
Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation were found to be an illegal monopoly by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury Wednesday. File Photo by Andrew Gombert/EPA
April 15 (UPI) — A jury found Wednesday that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster maintained an illegal monopoly in ticketing.
The case was heard in a Manhattan federal court over five weeks and saw testimony from dozens of witnesses. The jury began deliberations Friday.
The complaint was brought by the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general in 2024. It said that the company engaged in “anticompetitive conduct” and controlled all ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions.
Because of this, fans paid higher fees, and artists had fewer options for touring and venues.
Live Nation denies acting as a monopoly.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the verdict “a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans and the venues that support them.”
“In the face of dwindling antitrust enforcement by the Trump Administration, this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans,” Bonta said in a statement.
The Justice Department struck a settlement deal in March, but states decided to continue with the lawsuit instead.
The Justice Department settlement with Live Nation required Ticketmaster to divest up to 13 amphitheaters, reserve 50% of tickets for nonexclusive venues and cap ticketing service fees at 15%. A senior Justice Department official said it would lower prices by expanding choices.
“This settlement will resolve all remaining matters with the DOJ, without any admission of wrongdoing,” Live Nation said in a statement.
The verdict does not mean prices will drop soon, CNN reported.
Judge Arun Subramanian now must have a second trial to decide on remedies. The states requested a breakup of the company, or he could order a sale of the business.
“It will be an earthquake in the industry in terms of people’s perception in feeling validated,” Scott Grzenczyk, a lawyer with law firm Girard Sharp, told CNN.
“There’s a big difference between people complaining about Goliath and getting a jury verdict that Goliath was a monopolist and doing something wrong,” he said.
Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, pleaded with jurors during closing arguments to “apply your common sense,” NBC News reported.
“You’re New Yorkers,” he said. “I trust that you know when someone is blowing smoke or being straight with you.”
“It’s time to hold them accountable,” Kessler said.
Shakira performs onstage during Global Citizen Live at Central Park in New York City on September 27, 2025. Photo by Derek French/UPI | License Photo
THERE’S a town in the UK which is not only beautiful, but is said to have some of the longest living locals in the country.
Lewes, in East Sussex town is known for being a big foodie destination.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
The town of Lewes has been named Britain’s most beautifulCredit: AlamyIt has also been named a place where people live the longest in the countryCredit: Alamy
Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration@thesuntravel.
The Telegraph declared Lewes to be the country’s ‘prettiest town‘, and it’s also one of the top 10 places in the UK where Brits ‘live the longest’.
According to the publication, the average life expectancy in Lewes is 85.1 years for women, and 80.9 for men.
This is compared to the UK average which is 83 years for women and 79.1 years for men. (The lowest in the UK is in Blackpool with 78.9 years for women and 73.1 for men).
Lewes was described as a ‘hip and historic’ market town with access to the South Downs National Park.
The main feature of the town, however, is its medieval castle which sits on a hilltop looking over it.
Visitors can climb up the steep staircase, and if they do so are rewarded with the best views of Lewes and the hills of the South Downs.
Entry tickets into the castle cost £12 per person.
Heading back into the town centre there are top bakeries, breweries and pubs to explore.
The Flint Owl Bakery was recognised in the top 50 UK bakeries by theGood Food Guide 2025.
It’s well-known for its Lewes-baked organic breads and pastries that are freshly baked each morning.
Lewes has its own local brewery called Harvey’s – which should be a spot that every visitor pops into, especially as it runs its own tours around the factory.
If you don’t fancy a tour, Harvey’s Brewery Shop is in the town too so you can pick up a few bottles of beer and ale to enjoy at home.
Something very unique about it is that its drinks are still delivered to the local pubs by dray horses.
Glyndebourne is a famous opera house with beautiful gardens and groundsCredit: Getty
For more British charm, here are some of our favourite seaside towns…
*If you click on a link in this box, we will earn affiliate revenue.
Sidmouth, Devon Take a trip to Sidmouth on the Jurassic Coast and wander down Jacob’s Ladder to its pretty shingle beach. Make sure to walk along the promenade and check out the independent shops and boutiques. Stay at the four-star Harbour Hotel for sea views and traditional afternoon tea from £135 per room.
Whitby, North Yorkshire With a history of sailors and vampires, a dramatic coastal path, and the very best in pints and scampi, it takes a lot to beat Whitby. Pop in the amusements, eat award-winning fish and chips, and board the all-singing Captain Cook boat tour on the harbour. The Royal Hotel overlooks the harbour with stays from just £68 per room.
Old Hunstanton, Norfolk This town has some of the best beach walks beside striped limestone cliffs, a Victorian lighthouse and 13th century ruins. The beach has golden sands with rolling dunes and colourful beach huts, backed by a pretty pinewood forest. Stay at a beachfront hotel from £100 per room.
Seahouses, Northumberland This is an authentic British seaside break, with fishing boats bobbing on its pretty harbour and fresh catches of the day to enjoy in local restaurants. There’s no flashing arcades here, but there’s a great beach with rockpools, boat trips, and you may even spot a grey seal, too. Treat yourself to a stay at the Bamburgh Castle Inn from £129 per room.
The Swan Inn on the high street is a popular spot to head into for a pint.
It has a unique pub garden too as it sits on the Greenwich Meridian – an invisible border which divides the world into east and west.
Another pretty spot just outside of the town is Glyndebourne, which is an opera house where Pavarotti once performed.
It sits amongst 12-acres of gardens with flowers, ponds and delicately trimmed hedges.
Every summer, it holds a festival where world-class opera singers perform – during the interval, guests can enjoy a fine dining dinner, or have a picnic on the grounds.
For more pretty gardens, head to Southover Grange Gardens, a former private garden built in 1952, which one visitor describes as a ‘gorgeous floral garden’.
It’s organised by six different societies, they each have a festival on the day with a torch-lit procession and of course huge firework displays all over the town.
For those who can’t get enough of being by the seaside, you can reach Brighton in under half-an-hour by car.
Or if you head to Brighton by train, it takes just 17-minutes from Lewes station.
Check out the other destinations in the UK where people live the longest…
Here is where people live the longest in the UK, according to The Telegraph…
Wokingham
Average life expectancy; Women – 85.6 years. Men 82.8 years
Kensington and Chelsea, London
Average life expectancy; Women – 87.1 years. Men 83.9 years
Windsor
Average life expectancy; Women – 85.1 years. Men 81.3 years
Richmond
Average life expectancy; Women – 86.3 years. Men 82.5 years
Totnes
Average life expectancy; Women – 85.9 years. Men 82 years
Bearsden
Average life expectancy; Women – 83.9 years. Men 80.3 years
Monmouth
Average life expectancy; Women – 85.2 years. Men 80.7 years
Fleet
Average life expectancy; Women – 85.5 years. Men 83.5 years
Lewes
Average life expectancy; Women – 85.1 years. Men 80.9 years
Stroud
Average life expectancy; Women – 84.4 years. Men 80.8 years
Saturday Kitchen was back on screens for another episode but, before the show went live, host Matt Tebbutt suffered an unfortunate accident.
Joe Crutchley Screen Time Reporter
11:14, 11 Apr 2026
Saturday Kitchen’s Matt Tebbutt suffers painful injury just moments before going live(Image: BBC)
Matt Tebbutt has revealed he suffered a painful injury just moments before he appeared on Saturday Kitchen.
The beloved BBC show returned to screens on Saturday morning (April 11) with Matt back at the helm. Joining Matt on the programme were chefs John Chantarasak, Niklas Ekstedt and Thomasina Miers.
Chart-topping singer Jack Savoretti also made an appearance – in which viewers had to vote on whether he would have his version of food heaven or food hell. Drinks expert Helen McGinn was on hand too, to discuss some booze.
However, just minutes in and Matt revealed things took a worrying turn moments before the show went live, after he suffered a painful injury.
Talking to Helen, Matt revealed: “So I burnt my lips in rehearsal. Does it look like I’ve got fillers?” Helen replied: “It doesn’t look bad at the moment,” to which Matt shared: “I’ve got a blister there. It only hurts when I talk.”
Helen then said: “It’s going to hurt later.” Matt quipped: “Shall I not talk?” Giggling, Helen added: “I don’t know if you can get away with that!” Trying not to move his sore lips, Matt said: “Tell us about the wine,” as Helen laughed and replied: “I’ll give you a straw later.”
Matt quipped back: “I’ll dribble it all out, like you’ve been at the dentist.” Touching his sore lip Matt continued: “That’s what I feel like.”
It comes after Matt returned to Saturday Kitchen last month after spending some time in Australia. Earlier in March, audiences saw The One Show’s Alex Jones take the presenter’s chair as she was accompanied by Mike Reid, Adejoké Bakare, Bryn Williams and special guest Phil Wang.
While Matt appeared on the programme the previous week, the BBC star confirmed it was a pre-recorded episode as he posted updates from Australia with his Instagram followers.
Nevertheless, the 52-year-old presenter was back in charge once more in March as he paused to commend Alex for stepping in.
He remarked: “Before we go on with our usual nonsense, we should say how well Alex did last week. Well done, Alex Jones.”
Saturday Kitchen airs every Saturday at 10am on BBC One.
