The Scalping Saga: Why California’s Ticket Cap Failed
There’s a strange irony in how the music industry continues to grapple with ticket scalping. On one hand, artists and fans want access to shows; on the other, a shadowy ecosystem of resellers turns concert tickets into commodities. California’s recent failed attempt to cap resale prices at 10% above face value is the latest chapter in this ongoing battle—a story that’s less about tickets and more about power, money, and who gets to decide the rules of the game.
The bill, AB 1720, was a modest proposal in theory but a lightning rod in practice. It aimed to rein in platforms like StubHub, which spent $3.4 million lobbying against it this year alone. What’s fascinating isn’t just the sheer scale of that spending but what it reveals about the industry’s priorities. StubHub’s argument—that more choice and flexibility benefit fans—feels almost performative. If ‘choice’ meant letting a fan buy a ticket for $50 instead of $500, why would they need to spend millions to block such a law? This isn’t about access; it’s about control. The platform’s business model thrives on scarcity, and any cap would erode that artificial inflation.
But here’s where the real tension lies: the bill’s supporters, including artists and independent venues, weren’t asking for a revolution. They wanted a small fix—a way to prevent scalpers from turning concert tickets into speculative investments. The amendment that limited the law to venues with 3,000 seats or fewer was a concession, not a victory. It’s a microcosm of the broader issue: even when the solution is simple, the resistance is institutional. Why would a law that protects fans from being priced out of their favorite concerts face such fierce opposition? Because the current system is rigged to benefit those who already hold the most power.
The ripple effects of this failure extend far beyond California. While the state’s bill died, similar measures have passed in Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. Massachusetts even embedded a price cap into its supplemental spending bill. This isn’t just a regional issue—it’s a national reckoning. The fact that artists like Noah Kahan and Kid Rock have publicly endorsed such measures suggests a generational shift in priorities. Younger fans, raised on the idea of accessibility and fairness, are no longer content to let corporations dictate the terms of cultural participation.
Yet, the deeper question remains: what does this say about the music industry itself? When a platform like StubHub can spend millions to block a law that would protect fans, it’s clear that the industry’s interests are misaligned with the public. This isn’t just about tickets; it’s about who gets to profit from the cultural moments we all share. The current system treats concerts as luxury goods rather than communal experiences, and that’s a problem that goes beyond pricing.
Looking ahead, the fight over ticket resale is far from over. California’s defeat may embolden resellers, but it also galvanizes advocates. The next battleground could be federal legislation, or perhaps a grassroots movement that pressures platforms to self-regulate. What’s certain is that the status quo is unsustainable. If the music industry wants to survive in an era of rising inequality and public distrust, it needs to start treating fans not as consumers, but as stakeholders in the cultural ecosystem they support.
