trust

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.

April 12 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has dismissed all six members of the Presidio Trust board, removing the leadership of the federal entity that manages San Francisco’s Presidio.

Trump previously targeted the Presidio Trust in a February 2025 executive order that described the agency as an “unnecessary governmental entity” and called for it to be reduced.

The trustees, who were appointed during the Biden administration, were notified of their removal this week, Lisa Petrie, spokeswoman for the Presidio Trust, said.

Chairman Mark Buell told The San Francisco Standard that the White House sent him a short email saying the termination was “effective immediately.”

“I was surprised that this didn’t happen sooner,” he said.

The other board members include Charles M. Collins, Lenore Eccles, Patsy Ishiyama, Bonnie LePard and Nicola Miner.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi helped create the trust, established in 1996 to rehabilitate the former Army post after it closed. The national park is in her district.

The Trump administration has been reshaping the federal bureaucracy and has fired numerous government workers.

The Presidio, now a national park near the Golden Gate Bridge, includes museums, campgrounds, trails, hotels and a golf course.

Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has proposed a roadmap for ending the United States-Israeli war on Iran as tensions escalate across the Middle East.

Zarif’s plan was published by Foreign Affairs magazine on Friday and goes “beyond a temporary ceasefire”.

The war, which erupted on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes on Iran, has spread across the Middle East and convulsed the global economy as Tehran attacked its neighbours, claiming to be targeting US assets there and restricting movement of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Regional hostilities showed no signs of abating on Sunday, a day after US President Donald Trump said Iran had 48 hours to cut a deal or face “all hell”.

Against this backdrop, Zarif’s roadmap said that although Iran viewed itself as successful in the war, prolonging the conflict – while potentially “psychologically satisfying” for Tehran – would only result in further loss of civilian lives and destruction of infrastructure.

Iran should, therefore, offer to “place limits on its nuclear program” under international monitoring as well as “reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for an end to all sanctions”, Zarif wrote.

Since the war began, Iran has virtually blocked the key waterway, through which one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and natural gas supplies normally pass.

Nuclear limits on Iran would include a commitment to never seek nuclear weapons and to blend its entire stockpile of enriched uranium so its enrichment levels fall below 3.67 percent, Zarif said.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates, Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent, a level at which uranium can be quickly enriched to the 90 percent threshold needed to produce a nuclear weapon.

Zarif called Trump’s demand for zero enrichment “fanciful” thinking.

Iran should also “accept a mutual nonaggression pact with the United States” in which both countries pledge to not strike each other in the future, the former minister said.

The US should also end all sanctions and United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran, he added.

Regional consortium

Zarif also outlined potential roles for regional and international actors.

He suggested that China and Russia along with the US could help create a regional fuel-enrichment consortium with Iran and its Gulf neighbours at West Asia’s sole enrichment facility with Iran transferring all enriched material and equipment there.

Zarif additionally proposed that Gulf states, UN Security Council powers and possibly Egypt, Pakistan and Turkiye should form a regional security framework to “ensure nonaggression, cooperation and freedom of navigation”, including arrangements to guarantee safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

“To further consolidate peace, Iran and the United States should initiate mutually beneficial trade, economic and technological cooperation,” Zarif added.

The Iranian politician said this roadmap would benefit Trump, offering him a “well-timed off-ramp” and an opportunity to claim peace.

“Emotions may be high, and each side is boasting about its war-front victories. But history best remembers those who make peace,” he said.

The US has presented Iran with a 15-point plan for a ceasefire as Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt have been trying to achieve direct talks, but there has been no signs of progress on the diplomatic front.

What about the Gulf?

Officials from Gulf states have responded to Zarif’s proposal, criticising it for overlooking Tehran’s attacks against its neighbours.

“Reading M. Javad Zarif’s article in Foreign Affairs ignores one of the core flaws in Iran’s strategy: aggression against its Gulf Arab neighbors,” Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic adviser to the president of the United Arab Emirates, said on X on Saturday.

“Thousands of missiles & drones targeting infrastructure, civilians, even mediators, is not strength; it is hubris & strategic failure. The Arab world has seen this before: destruction peddled as victory,” he added.

Former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani also responded to Zarif’s plan, writing on X on Sunday that he “agreed with much of it” and it took a “clever” approach.

Still, he pushed back, stating that the war has “led us all into a path that is more complicated and dangerous” and chiding Iran for its attacks on the Gulf.

“You may believe that you have achieved progress in some aspects, and perhaps temporary tactical gains, but the cost was clear: the loss of an important part of your friends in the region, and the erosion of the trust that was built over years,” he wrote.

“Today, we need a voice like yours [Zarif’s] merging from within Iran to propose solutions to this war,” he added.

Iranian strikes come after Israel attacked Iran’s South Pars gasfield, with President Pezeshkian warning of ‘uncontrollable consequences’ that could ‘engulf the entire world’.