Existing law regulates various businesses to preserve and regulate competition and prohibit unfair practices, among other purposes. Existing law imposes various business practice restrictions on a food delivery platform, defined as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer. Existing law prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the platform to take orders and deliver meals, as prescribed.

This bill would prohibit a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant, as defined, for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation, except as specified.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any county counsel or city attorney, and an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the act to recover specified civil penalties. The bill would require a civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to the act to be deposited in the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund.

Existing law regulates various businesses to preserve and regulate competition and prohibit unfair practices, among other purposes. Existing law imposes various business practice restrictions on a food delivery platform, defined as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer. Existing law prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the platform to take orders and deliver meals, as prescribed.

This bill would prohibit a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant, as defined, for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation, except as specified.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any county counsel or city attorney, and an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the act to recover specified civil penalties. The bill would require a civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to the act to be deposited in the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund.

Existing law regulates various businesses to preserve and regulate competition and prohibit unfair practices, among other purposes. Existing law imposes various business practice restrictions on a food delivery platform, defined as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer. Existing law prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the platform to take orders and deliver meals, as prescribed.

This bill would prohibit a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant, as defined, for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation, except as specified.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any county counsel or city attorney, and an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the act to recover specified civil penalties. The bill would also create in the State Treasury the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund into which any require a civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to the act would to be deposited and would make the moneys in the fund available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of the act. in the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund.

Existing law regulates various businesses to preserve and regulate competition and prohibit unfair practices, among other purposes. Existing law imposes various business practice restrictions on a food delivery platform, defined as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer. Existing law prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the platform to take orders and deliver meals, as prescribed.

This bill would prohibit a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant, as defined, for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation, except as specified.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any county counsel or city attorney, and an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the act to recover specified civil penalties. The bill would also create in the State Treasury the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund into which any civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to the act would be deposited and would make the moneys in the fund available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of the act.

Existing law regulates various businesses to preserve and regulate competition and prohibit unfair practices, among other purposes. Existing law imposes various business practice restrictions on a food delivery platform, defined as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer. Existing law prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the platform to take orders and deliver meals, as prescribed.

This bill would prohibit a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant, as defined, for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation, except as specified.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any county counsel or city attorney, and an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the act to recover specified civil penalties. The bill would also create in the State Treasury the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund into which any civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to the act would be deposited and would make the moneys in the fund available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of the act.

Existing law imposes various business practice restrictions on a food delivery platform, defined as an online business that acts as an intermediary between consumers and multiple food facilities to submit food and beverage orders from a consumer to a participating food facility, and to arrange for, or to complete, the delivery of the order from the food facility to the consumer.

Existing law requires a listing website, as defined, to provide specified information in a clear and conspicuous manner, including a requirement that the website clearly and conspicuously disclose if an order placed through a telephone number or other interface on the listing websites internet website or application may result in a fee, commission, or cost paid to a party other than the food facility, as provided. Existing law defines clearly and conspicuously to mean in a font no smaller than boldface, 14-point type, clearly separate from any other language on the page.

This bill would revise the definition of clearly and conspicuously to increase the type size to 16 point.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1640

Author:(Stefani and Lowenthal)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than the price they paid for the reservation, unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant expressly permitting them to charge a higher amount.

Senate Amendments

1. Deleted provisions creating a new special fund for the deposit of civil penalties collected by the Attorney General. Instead, the penalties are required to be deposited in the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund.
2. Clarifies that the provisions only apply to restaurants in the state.

COMMENTS

Restaurants are a cornerstone of American social life: job promotions, birthdays, anniversaries, and more are often best celebrated over a meal with family and friends at a favorite restaurant or a trendy new eatery. However, a growing market for "pirated" restaurant reservations seeks to profit off the backs of these establishments' hard-earned reputations by price-gouging reservations that are typically free. Customers are forced to either fight for reservations directly from the restaurant or pay exorbitant fees for a table. Restaurants are also harmed by reservation piracy: selling reservations may cause restaurants to believe that they are booked when they actually are not, leading to over-purchasing of ingredients and overstaffing. Restaurant owners lose profit, staff lose tips, and customers miss out on a great meal.

This bill, sponsored by the California Restaurant Association, seeks to mitigate this issue by prohibiting a person from selling a restaurant reservation for more than the amount paid for the reservation, unless the person has express written authorization from the restaurant. Violators would be subject to a civil action brought by public prosecutors or private entities harmed by a violation. The bill has no registered opposition.

According to the Author

California's restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant's inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent. AB 1640 protects restaurants and consumers by prohibiting these deceptive practices, ensuring that only those with a written agreement can list or sell reservations. This bill also establishes penalties for violators, empowers the Attorney General to take legal action, and creates a state fund to support enforcement efforts. By holding bad actors accountable, AB 1640 safeguards small businesses and ensures a fair, transparent reservation process for all.

Arguments in Support

The California Restaurant Association, sponsors of the bill, argue:

This bill protects restaurants and consumers by banning a deceptive practice that results in a loss of revenue for businesses that experience reservation no-shows and reduced opportunities for the public to dine at their favorite establishments.

The CRA is the unified voice of the restaurant industry – advocating for nearly 22,000 neighborhood restaurants. Our members constantly look for ways to help maximize occupancy in their establishments, which increasingly includes the use of integrated reservation systems. While restaurateurs use these systems to make booking reservations seamless for customers, there has been a rise in unauthorized third-party reservation services that use bots and fake profiles to hoard reservations and then resell them for a profit – monetizing a restaurant's inventory of tables in a dining room and creating arbitrary economic barriers for guest access.

Restaurants invest in staffing, product procurement, developing brand reputation, and reservation services. When these third parties insert themselves into that system without an agreement and harm the complex system present for reservations, it creates several hardships for consumers and restaurants. Firstly, customer confusion – guests may assume that the establishment is involved in the reservation markup, possibly devaluing the experience for the guest because of the increased expectations that come with an inflated price. Consequently, this has created a system where only people with the means to pay for inflated reservation prices can acquire them and enjoy these restaurants.

Moreover, operational disruptions may arise from the mishandling of reservations by these third parties, potentially harming the guest experience and the reputation of the restaurant. Similarly, when these third parties are unable to resell reservations, nobody shows up – resulting in a situation where employees lose a tipped-earning opportunity, and the restaurants experience a revenue loss. These no-shows are especially harmful for neighborhood restaurants that rely on legitimate reservations to plan for anticipated costs.

Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate any civil cases filed as a result of this bill (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.

VOTES:

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Lee, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-2

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kate Davis / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0004247

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1640

Author: Stefani (D) and Lowenthal (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/16/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashby, Weber Pierson

SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/29/26

AYES: Wahab, Choi, Archuleta, Arreguín, Caballero, Grayson, Menjivar, Niello, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act

SOURCE: California Restaurant Association

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than the price they paid for the reservation, unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant expressly permitting them to charge a higher amount.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits a person from using, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a mark registered under the Model State Trademark Law in connection with the sale, distribution, offering for sale, or advertising of goods or services if such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive as to the source of origin of the goods or services. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 14245(a)(1).)
2. Establishes the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which provides a statutory cause of action for any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, including over the internet. (Bus. & Prof. Code, div. 7, pt. 2, ch. 5, §§ 17200 et seq.)
3. Prohibits a food delivery platform, as defined, from arranging for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22599(a).)
4. Prohibits a person from selling, or offering to sell, an appointment with the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Veh. Code, § 1680(a).)

This bill:

1. Establishes the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act (Act).
2. Defines “restaurant” as a retail food establishment in this state that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to the customer.
3. Provides that a person shall not sell or transfer, or facilitate the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant for an amount higher than the person paid to acquire the reservation.
4. Provides that 3) does not apply if the person has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount.
5. Provides that a person who violates the Act or causes another person to violate the Act shall be liable for the following, as applicable, in a civil action brought by the Attorney General, or any county or city attorney, in a court of competent jurisdiction:
   1. A civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 per violation.
   2. Injunctive or declaratory relief.
   3. Reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. Provides that an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the Act may bring a civil action to recover all of the following:
   1. Actual damages.
   2. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
   3. Injunctive or declaratory relief.
   4. Any other relief the court deems proper.
7. Provides that any civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to 5) shall be deposited in the Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund, as specified.

Comments

Restaurant reservations benefit restaurants and consumers. The restaurant gets a sense of how busy it’s likely to be on a given night, allowing it to more efficiently plan seating charts and divide up tables between servers. The consumer gets to show up for dinner without having to worry about a wait for a table. Because reservations are a win-win, restaurant reservations are virtually always free, though some restaurants require a deposit or charge a no-show fee to reduce their losses in the event a diner doesn’t make it. Increasingly, restaurants offer reservations through online platforms; in theory, letting consumers make reservations online at any time, and letting them see available dates and times for reservations, is more convenient for both the restaurant and the consumer.

Recently, however, a secondary market for reservations has sprung up to profit off of free reservations. These “reservation marketplaces” advertise themselves as merely connecting diners who need to offload a reservation—say, because a conflict arose on the reservation date—with diners who want a reservation at the same restaurant. But in practice, these marketplaces make it profitable for individuals—often, but not always, using bots—to scoop up all available free reservations, so that the only way a diner can get a reservation is to pay for it. The restaurant still bears all the risk and downside of a missed reservation; the consumer has to pay for a free thing; the only winner is the reservation pirate who gamed the system.

This bill puts a stop to reservation pirating in the state by prohibiting any person from selling restaurant reservations for more than what was paid for the reservation, unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant to do so. Under this bill, therefore, reservation resales would still be allowed in two circumstances: when the reservation is resold at its original cost (thereby allowing consumers to recoup deposits they would otherwise lose), or when the reservation is resold with the consent of the restaurant (thereby allowing restaurants to choose whether, and on what terms, to work with reservation resellers, and giving restaurants a greater degree of certainty regarding reservations). The bill is enforceable by a public prosecutor and creates a private right of action for persons actually harmed by a violation.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the fiscal effect is as follows:

Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate any civil cases filed as a result of this bill (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/14/26)

California Restaurant Association (Source)
California Attractions and Parks Association

California Travel Association

Epic Steak

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Karl Strauss Brewing Company

Open Table
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Zinfandel Grill + Prelude Kitchen & Bar + Interlude Kitchen & Bar

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/14/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to a coalition of this bill’s supporters:

Eating establishments constantly look for ways to help maximize occupancy in their businesses, which increasingly includes the use of integrated reservation systems. While restaurateurs use these systems to make booking reservations seamless for customers, there has been a rise in unauthorized third-party reservation services that use bots and fake profiles to hoard reservations and then sell them for a profit – monetizing a restaurant’s inventory of tables in a dining room and creating arbitrary economic barriers for guest access.

Restaurants invest in staffing, product procurement, developing brand reputation, and reservation services. When these third parties insert themselves into that system without an agreement and intrude on the complex system for managing reservations, it creates several hardships for consumers and restaurants. Firstly, customer confusion – guests may assume that the establishment is involved in the reservation sales, possibly devaluing the experience for the guest because of the increased expectations that come with an inflated price. Consequently, this has created a system where only people with the means to pay for inflated reservation prices can acquire them and enjoy these restaurants.

Moreover, operational disruptions may arise from the mishandling of reservations by these third parties, potentially harming the guest experience and the reputation of the restaurant. Similarly, when these third parties are unable to resell reservations, nobody shows up – resulting in a situation where employees lose a tipped-earning opportunity, and the restaurants experience a revenue loss. These no-shows are especially harmful for neighborhood restaurants that rely on legitimate reservations to plan for anticipated costs.

Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Muratsuchi, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/17/26 10:38:04

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1640 (Stefani) - California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act

Bill Summary:

AB 1640 establishes the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act, which prohibits a person from selling or transferring a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation unless expressly authorized by a written agreement with the restaurant.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state

funded trial court system to adjudicate any civil cases filed as a result of this bill (Trial

Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend

on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each

case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If court

days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could

result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund

additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for

trial court operations.

Author Amendments:

• Delete the new fund and instead require civil penalty revenue collected by the Attorney General to be deposited in the Department of Justice’s existing Public Rights Law Enforcement Special Fund.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1640 (Stefani) - California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act

Bill Summary:

AB 1640 establishes the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act, which prohibits a person from selling or transferring a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation unless expressly authorized by a written agreement with the restaurant.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state

funded trial court system to adjudicate any civil cases filed as a result of this bill (Trial

Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend

on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each

case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If court

days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could

result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund

additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for

trial court operations.

Background:

In recent years, the resale of restaurant reservations has received increased national attention as online marketplaces have emerged that allow users to buy and sell reservations at high-demand restaurants. In a March 2025 article, Eater San Francisco reported that platforms such as Appointment Trader facilitate the sale of reservations for sought-after restaurants, including several well-known California establishments, with some reservations advertised for hundreds or even thousands of dollars despite the reservations themselves often being offered by restaurants at no charge. Eater further reported that supporters of legislation regulating these marketplaces contend that the practice may reduce reservation availability for the general public and create operational challenges for restaurants when reservations are acquired for resale rather than genuine dining plans.

The issue has also been the subject of broader national reporting. The New York Times has reported on the growth of online marketplaces for restaurant reservations and the emergence of a secondary market in which reservations at popular restaurants are treated as transferable commodities, prompting debate among restaurants, consumers, and policymakers regarding fairness, access, and the appropriate role of reservation platforms. In response to these developments, New York became the first state to enact legislation specifically regulating the unauthorized resale of restaurant reservations through its Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act. AB 1640 proposes a similar policy approach by regulating the resale of restaurant reservations in California.

Proposed Law:

• Establishes the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act, which prohibits a person from selling or transferring a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation. Provides that this prohibition does not apply if the person has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount.
• Provides that a person who violates or causes another person to violate the provisions of the Act is liable for the following, as applicable, in a civil action brought by the Attorney General (AG), or any county counsel or city attorney, in a court of competent jurisdiction:
  • A civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation.
  • Injunctive or declaratory relief.
  • Reasonable attorney’s fees.
• Provides that an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the Act may bring a civil action to recover actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive or declaratory relief, and any other relief the court deems proper.
• Creates the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund in the State Treasury and requires civil penalties recovered by the AG to be deposited into the fund. Provides that moneys in the fund shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
• For purposes of the Act, defines “restaurant” to mean a retail food establishment in this state that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to a customer.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 29, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY:

Establishes the California Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act, which prohibits a person from selling, transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of a restaurant reservation for more than the amount originally paid unless expressly authorized by a written agreement with the restaurant. Authorizes enforcement by the Attorney General and local prosecutors through civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, creates a private right of action for parties harmed by violations, and establishes a special fund to support administration of the act.

NOTE: This bill was previously heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary on June 16 and passed by a vote of 11-0.

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and authorizes enforcement by the Attorney General and specified local prosecutors. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §§ 17200 et seq.)
2. Prohibits untrue or misleading statements made in connection with the sale or disposition of property or services and authorizes civil and criminal enforcement against false advertising. (BPC §§ 17500 et seq.)
3. Regulates third-party food delivery platforms by establishing requirements governing their relationships with restaurants, including specified consumer disclosures and restrictions on certain business practices. (BPC §§ 22598 et seq.)
4. Regulates ticket sellers by requiring, among other things, that ticket sellers maintain a permanent business address, make specified disclosures to consumers, maintain records of ticket sales, refrain from advertising or selling tickets they do not possess or have the contractual right to sell, provide refunds under specified circumstances, and comply with other consumer protection requirements governing the sale and resale of event tickets. (BPC §§ 22500–22508.)
5. Prohibits the use, sale, or distribution of software or services that circumvent security measures or purchasing limits for online ticket sales. (BPC § 22505.5.)
6. Provides that a person shall not sell or offer for sale any ticket to a place of entertainment at a price greater than the price printed on the ticket if the ticket was originally issued without charge or at a complimentary or reduced rate and bears a notice prohibiting resale. (Penal Code § 346)
7. Federal law prohibits the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 and the circumvention of security measures or access controls used by online ticket sellers to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits and prohibits the resale of tickets obtained through those unlawful means, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. (15 U.S.C. § 45c )

This bill:

1. Establishes the California Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act which defines a “restaurant” as a retail food establishment in California that prepares, serves, and sells food directly to customers.
2. Prohibits a person from selling, transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of a restaurant reservation for an amount greater than the amount paid to acquire the reservation, unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant expressly authorizing the higher price.
3. Authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring a civil action against a person who violates the Act. Authorizes a court to impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, as well as injunctive or declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees in an enforcement action brought by a public prosecutor. Authorizes an individual or entity that suffers actual harm as a result of a violation to bring a civil action to recover actual damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, injunctive or declaratory relief, and any other relief the court deems proper.
4. Creates the California Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act Fund in the State Treasury and requires civil penalties recovered by the Attorney General to be deposited into the fund. Provides that moneys in the fund shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the administration and enforcement of the Act.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill is keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel. According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the bill will result in possible General Fund and special fund costs to the Department of Justice of an unknown amount. Actual costs will depend on whether the Attorney General pursues enforcement actions, and, if so, the level of additional staffing needed. The bill could also result in cost pressures of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate any additional filings and cost pressure of an unknown but potentially significant amount to establish the Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The California Restaurant Association is the sponsor of this bill. According to the Author, “California’s restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant’s inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent. AB 1640 protects restaurants and consumers by prohibiting these deceptive practices, ensuring that only those with a written agreement can list or sell reservations. This bill also establishes penalties for violators, empowers the Attorney General to take legal action, and creates a state fund to support enforcement efforts. By holding bad actors accountable, AB 1640 safeguards small businesses and ensures a fair, transparent reservation process for all.”

The Author says that “In recent years, the unauthorized sale of restaurant reservations has become a growing concern, particularly in major cities. These unauthorized reservation resellers engage in predatory practices by securing highly coveted restaurant reservations, often under false pretenses, and selling them for personal profit. These platforms create artificial scarcity, charge consumers for otherwise often free reservations, and not only do they not have formal agreements in place, but they also often never even let the restaurant know that they are selling their reservations online.

This practice not only makes dining out more expensive for consumers but also creates logistical disruptions for restaurants, leading to increased no-show rates and lost revenue. Restaurants operate on razor-thin profit margins and a few no-shows on any given day – which are increasingly the byproduct of reservation piracy, can result in independent restaurants being unprofitable or employees losing tipped earning opportunities. Additionally, numerous instances have been reported of predatory restaurant reservation resellers double-booking reservations, forcing diners to be turned away at the door without a remedy to recoup their reservation fee.

Recognizing these challenges, New York enacted the Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act in December 2024 – which prohibits anyone from arranging reservations without a direct agreement with restaurants, effectively targeting the underground market for restaurant bookings.”

1. Background. California has long regulated unfair business practices and deceptive commercial conduct through the Unfair Competition Law (BPC §§ 17200 et seq.) and the False Advertising Law (BPC §§ 17500 et seq.). The Legislature has also enacted laws governing certain secondary marketplaces, including the sale and resale of event tickets (BPC §§ 22500 et seq.) and the use of automated software to circumvent online ticket purchasing limits (BPC § 22505.5). California regulates third-party food delivery platforms by requiring agreements with restaurants and established specified consumer protection requirements (BPC §§ 22598 et seq.) California law also generally does not prohibit the resale of goods or services for more than the amount originally paid. Existing ticket resale laws are directed toward specific consumer protection concerns, such as seller disclosures, contractual authority to sell tickets, refund obligations, and the use of automated software to evade purchasing limits. Similarly, restaurant delivery platform laws govern the relationship between restaurants and online intermediaries but do not address the resale or transfer of restaurant reservations. As a result, existing law does not specifically regulate the secondary market for restaurant reservations.

In recent years, the resale of restaurant reservations has received increased national attention as online marketplaces have emerged that allow users to buy and sell reservations at high-demand restaurants. In a March 2025 article, Eater San Francisco reported that platforms such as Appointment Trader facilitate the sale of reservations for sought-after restaurants, including several well-known California establishments, with some reservations advertised for hundreds or even thousands of dollars despite the reservations themselves often being offered by restaurants at no charge. Eater further reported that supporters of legislation regulating these marketplaces contend that the practice may reduce reservation availability for the general public and create operational challenges for restaurants when reservations are acquired for resale rather than genuine dining plans.

The issue has also been the subject of broader national reporting. The New York Times has reported on the growth of online marketplaces for restaurant reservations and the emergence of a secondary market in which reservations at popular restaurants are treated as transferable commodities, prompting debate among restaurants, consumers, and policymakers regarding fairness, access, and the appropriate role of reservation platforms. In response to these developments, New York became the first state to enact legislation specifically regulating the unauthorized resale of restaurant reservations through its Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act. AB 1640 proposes a similar policy approach by regulating the resale of restaurant reservations in California.

1. Arguments in Support. Supporters write that “Restaurants invest in staffing, product procurement, developing brand reputation, and reservation services. When these third parties insert themselves into that system without an agreement and intrude on the complex system for managing reservations, it creates several hardships for consumers and restaurants. Firstly, customer confusion – guests may assume that the establishment is involved in the reservation sales, possibly devaluing the experience for the guest because of the increased expectations that come with an inflated price. Consequently, this has created a system where only people with the means to pay for inflated reservation prices can acquire them and enjoy these restaurants. Moreover, operational disruptions may arise from the mishandling of reservations by these third parties, potentially harming the guest experience and the reputation of the restaurant. Similarly, when these third parties are unable to resell reservations, nobody shows up – resulting in a situation where employees lose a tipped-earning opportunity, and the restaurants experience a revenue loss. These no-shows are especially harmful for neighborhood restaurants that rely on legitimate reservations to plan for anticipated costs. Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.”

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

Booking.com
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Restaurant Association
California Travel Association
Epic Steak
Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Interlude Kitchen & Bar

Karl Strauss Brewing Co
Resy
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Prelude Kitchen & Bar

Zinfandel Grill

Opposition:

None received

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1640 (Author:Stefani)

Version: March 2, 2026

Hearing Date: June 16, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act

DIGEST

This bill prohibits a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than they price they paid for the reservation, unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant expressly permitting them to charge a higher amount.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Restaurant reservations benefit restaurants and consumers. The restaurant gets a sense of how busy it’s likely to be on a given night, allowing it to more efficiently plan seating charts and divide up tables between servers. The consumer gets to show up for dinner without having to worry about a wait for a table. Because reservations are a win-win, restaurant reservations are virtually always free, though some restaurants require a deposit or charge a no-show fee to reduce their losses in the event a diner doesn’t make it. Increasingly, restaurants offer reservations through online platforms; in theory, letting consumers make reservations online at any time, and letting them see available dates and times for reservations, is more convenient for both the restaurant and the consumer.

In the spirit of “we can’t have nice things,” however, a secondary market for reservations has sprung up to profit off of free reservations. These “reservation marketplaces” advertise themselves as merely connecting diners who need to offload a reservation—say, because a conflict arose on the reservation date—with diners who want a reservation at the same restaurant. But in practice, these marketplaces make it profitable for individuals—often, but not always, using bots—to scoop up all available free reservations, so that the only way a diner can get a reservation is to pay for it. The restaurant still bears all the risk and downside of a missed reservation; the consumer has to pay for a free thing; the only winner is the reservation pirate who gamed the system.

This bill puts a stop to reservation pirating in the state by prohibiting any person from selling restaurant reservations for more than what was paid for the reservation, unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant to do so. Under the bill, therefore, reservation resales would still be allowed in two circumstances: when the reservation is resold at its original cost (thereby allowing consumers to recoup deposits they would otherwise lose), or when the reservation is resold with the consent of the restaurant (thereby allowing restaurants to choose whether, and on what terms, to work with reservation resellers, and giving restaurants a greater degree of certainty regarding reservations). The bill is enforceable by a public prosecutor and creates a private right of action for persons actually harmed by a violation. The author has agreed to a minor amendment to clarify that the bill applies only to restaurants located in this state.

This bill is sponsored by the California Restaurant Association and is supported by the California Attractions and Parks Association, Epic Steak, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, Karl Strauss Brewing Company, Open Table, the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and Zinfandel Grill + Prelude Kitchen & Bar + Interlude Kitchen & Bar. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill. If this Committee passes this bill, it will be referred to the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Prohibits a person from using, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a mark registered under the Model State Trademark Law in connection with the sale, distribution, offering for sale, or advertising of goods or services if such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive as to the source of origin of the goods or services. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 14245(a)(1).)
2. Establishes the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which provides a statutory cause of action for any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, including over the internet. (Bus. & Prof. Code, div. 7, pt. 2, ch. 5, §§ 17200 et seq.)
3. Prohibits a food delivery platform, as defined, from arranging for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22599(a).)
4. Prohibits a person from selling, or offering to sell, an appointment with the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Veh. Code, § 1680(a).)

This bill:

1. Establishes the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act (Act).
2. Defines “restaurant” as a retail food establishment that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to the customer.
3. Provides that a person shall not sell or transfer, or facilitate the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant for an amount higher than the person paid to acquire the reservation.
4. Provides that 3) does not apply if the person has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount.
5. Provides that a person who violates the Act or causes another person to violate the Act shall be liable for the following, as applicable, in a civil action brought by the Attorney General, or any county or city attorney, in a court of competent jurisdiction:
   1. A civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 per violation.
   2. Injunctive or declaratory relief.
   3. Reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. Provides that an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the Act may bring a civil action to recover all of the following:
   1. Actual damages.
   2. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
   3. Injunctive or declaratory relief.
   4. Any other relief the court deems proper.
7. Creates in the State Treasury the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Fund, into which any civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General pursuant to 5) shall be deposited.
8. Provides that money in the fund under 8) shall be available, only upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of administering the Act.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

California’s restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant’s inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent. AB 1640 protects restaurants and consumers by prohibiting these deceptive practices, ensuring that only those with a written agreement can list or sell reservations. This bill also establishes penalties for violators, empowers the Attorney General to take legal action, and creates a state fund to support enforcement efforts. By holding bad actors accountable, AB 1640 safeguards small businesses and ensures a fair, transparent reservation process for all.

2. Restaurants, online reservations, and reservation poaching

California’s restaurant industry generates over $220 billion in annual sales, and the restaurant and food service industry supports a workforce of approximately 1.85 million jobs, making it one of the state’s largest private-sector employers.^[1] From taco trucks to three-Michelin-starred dining experiences, California’s restaurant scene is one of the most diverse and delicious in the world.^[2]

Restaurants in California, and across the county, increasingly rely on third-party reservation platforms such as OpenTable, Tock, and Resy. These apps allow restaurants to outsource their reservation management to the platform in exchange for a fee, which can often include both a monthly subscription fee and a per-booking commission.^[3] For restaurants, allowing their consumers to make reservations at any time, whether or not the restaurant is open, and to easily view open dates and times is often worth the added expense.

The rise of online reservation sites has, in turn, led to the rise of a secondary restaurant reservation market, in which sites like Cita Marketplace and Appointment Traders act as “marketplaces” for the transfer and procurement of reservations. These sites portray themselves as merely matching willing sellers with willing buyers; Appointment Traders, for example, brands themselves as the eBay of time slots, allowing users to “buy someone else’s confirmed reservation, or create a reward (bid) for someone to secure one on [the user’s] behalf.”^[4] If a person wants to dine at a restaurant on a particular day but there are no available reservations on Appointment Trader, they can either instantly purchase a reservation that another user has already put up for sale (like eBay’s “buy it now” feature); alternatively, they can offer a bid to Appointment Trader “concierges,” who will obtain the desired reservation if the price is right.^[5]

At the time of the drafting of this analysis, Kru, a popular Sacramento restaurant, has no available reservations on Resy for the rest of the day. Appointment Trader, on the other hand, purports to have at least one secured reservation for this evening; Appointment Trader’s suggested bid amount is $574, though the “hot zone,” i.e., the range at which Appointment Trader believes a bid is most likely to be accepted, starts at $1003 and goes to $3933. The maximum bid Appointment Trader will accept for the Kru reservation is $5,025; it is unclear why, except perhaps to anchor the $3,933 amount as a normal price to pay for a reservation that initially cost nothing.

Although there is probably some actual utility added by reservation marketplaces—if a person can’t make their prepaid reservation, being able to sell it to a willing buyer prevents them from losing those costs—evidence suggests that reservation marketplaces are mostly driven by bots and human rent-seekers.^[6] Rent-seeking is conduct that “doesn’t generate wealth exceeding the cost of the conduct itself, and is therefore motivated by the potential for wealth transfer.”^[7] In other words, rent-seeking enables the rentier to profit without contributing anything useful. In the case of reservation marketplaces, most restaurants offer their reservations for free; the bots or rent-seeking humans snatch up the reservations en masse with no intention of using them, but rather only to accumulate enough reservations that potential diners are forced to purchase a reservation that should have been free.

Reservation pirating hurts customers and restaurants. Customers are forced to choose between skipping out on a planned visit or paying for what should be a free reservation, and their overall costs increase. Restaurants lose out in several ways. First, when reservations are booked by reservation pirates and ultimately not sold, the restaurant is left with unfilled reservations and empty tables. Second, if customers end up having to pay for a reservation, they may end up spending less at the restaurant (particularly now, when consumer costs are so high). Third, customers who repeatedly cannot get a seat might ultimately give up, costing the restaurant a customer through no fault of the restaurant’s own. Reservation reseller sites generally operate without the restaurants’ consent, meaning all of the upside flows to the reservation reseller, while the restaurant bears all of the downside.

3. This bill prohibits restaurant piracy

This bill prohibits any person from selling restaurant reservations for more than was paid for the reservation unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant to do so. Under the bill, therefore, reservation resales would still be allowed in two circumstances: when the reservation is resold at its original cost (thereby allowing consumers to recoup deposits they would otherwise lose), or when the reservation is resold with the consent of the restaurant (thereby allowing restaurants to choose whether, and on what terms, to work with reservation resellers, and giving restaurants a greater degree of certainty regarding reservations). The author has agreed to amend the bill to clarify that it applies only to restaurants located within the state.

The bill permits the Attorney General, or any county counsel or city attorney, to pursue a civil action for a violation of the bill; a violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Additionally, individuals or entities that are harmed by a violation of the bill may bring a civil action to recover actual damages, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In both cases, the court may award injunctive or declaratory relief as needed.

If this bill passes, California will not be the first state to prohibit predatory reservation selling. New York passed an anti-reservation-piracy law in 2024 and it took effect last year;^[8] Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and Nevada also passed similar laws in 2025.^[9]

4. Arguments in support

According to a coalition of the bill’s supporters:

Eating establishments constantly look for ways to help maximize occupancy in their businesses, which increasingly includes the use of integrated reservation systems. While restaurateurs use these systems to make booking reservations seamless for customers, there has been a rise in unauthorized third-party reservation services that use bots and fake profiles to hoard reservations and then sell them for a profit – monetizing a restaurant’s inventory of tables in a dining room and creating arbitrary economic barriers for guest access.

Restaurants invest in staffing, product procurement, developing brand reputation, and reservation services. When these third parties insert themselves into that system without an agreement and intrude on the complex system for managing reservations, it creates several hardships for consumers and restaurants. Firstly, customer confusion – guests may assume that the establishment is involved in the reservation sales, possibly devaluing the experience for the guest because of the increased expectations that come with an inflated price. Consequently, this has created a system where only people with the means to pay for inflated reservation prices can acquire them and enjoy these restaurants.

Moreover, operational disruptions may arise from the mishandling of reservations by these third parties, potentially harming the guest experience and the reputation of the restaurant. Similarly, when these third parties are unable to resell reservations, nobody shows up – resulting in a situation where employees lose a tipped-earning opportunity, and the restaurants experience a revenue loss. These no-shows are especially harmful for neighborhood restaurants that rely on legitimate reservations to plan for anticipated costs.

Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.

SUPPORT

California Restaurant Association (sponsor)
California Attractions and Parks Association

Epic Steak

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Karl Strauss Brewing Company

Open Table
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Zinfandel Grill + Prelude Kitchen & Bar + Interlude Kitchen & Bar

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation: AB 1245 (Stefani, 2025) as originally drafted, was similar in intent to this bill, but targeted its prohibitions against third-party reservation services rather than reservation sellers. AB 1245 was held in the first committee and ultimately was gutted and amended to address different subject matter.

PRIOR VOTES

Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

**************

1. Arora, California Restaurant Industry Statistics: Market Trends, Employment Data & Growth Insights (last updates Jan. 9, 2026) Restroworks Blog, https://www.restroworks.com/blog/california-restaurant-industry-statistics/. All links in this analysis are current as of June 11, 2026. ↑

2. Committee staff may be biased. ↑

3. OpenTable, for example, charges a fee of $1 or $1.50 for every seat booked through the platform in addition to a monthly fee ranging from $149 to $499. (OpenTable, Find the plan that fits your business (2026) https://www.opentable.com/restaurant-solutions/plans/.) Its various subscription tiers also offer to provide the restaurant with “360 guest profiles” based on information OpenTable has obtained from consumer-users; its “Pro” tier offers unspecified “even more guest insights.” (Ibid.) ↑

4. Appointment Trader, “How AppointmentTrader Works for Customers” (2026) https://appointmenttrader.com/how-it-works/customers. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. Iscoe, “Why You Can’t Get a Restaurant Reservation” (Apr 22, 2024) The New Yorker, available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/why-you-cant-get-a-restaurant-reservation; Bennett, Reservations at top New York City restaurants are selling for hundreds of dollars (May 11, 2024) NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reservations-top-new-york-city-restaurants-are-selling-hundreds-dollar-rcna151702. ↑

7. Seidenfeld & Mungan, Duress as Rent-Seeking (Apr. 2015) 99 Minn. L. Rev. 1423, 1435. ↑

8. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law., § 391-w (Fernandez 2023). ↑

9. Fla. Stats. § 509.105; Ill. Comp. Stats., Act 672, §§ 672/1 et seq.; La. Rev. Stats. 51:3291; Nev. Rev. Stats. § 597.895. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1640

Author:(Stefani)

As Amended Ver:March 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits the sale of a restaurant reservation for more than what was originally charged for that reservation without the restaurant's consent. The bill also authorizes a public prosecutor to bring a civil action for civil penalties up to $1,000, as well as a private right of action for an individual who suffers actual harm.

Major Provisions

1. Defines "restaurant" as a retail food establishment that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to a customer.
2. Prohibits a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer, of a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than the person paid for the reservation. Exempts from this prohibition, a person who has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount.
3. Allows the Attorney General, or any county counsel or city attorney, to bring civil action against violators for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, injunctive or declaratory relief, and attorney's fees.
4. Provides individuals or entities who suffer actual harm with a private right of action to pursue civil litigation against violators for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, attorney's fees, and any other relief a court deems proper.

COMMENTS

The return to in-person dining following the COVID-19 pandemic increased restaurant partnerships with third-party reservation platforms such as Resy, OpenTable, and Tock. These partnerships have relieved restaurants of the strain of managing their own reservation system, expanded customer access to dining options, and have increased consumer exposure to different restaurants. However, an emerging market for restaurant reservations has consumers and restaurants alike worried about the future of restaurant profitability.

Secondary markets for restaurant reservations rely on sites like Cita Marketplace and Appointment Traders, which act as marketplaces for the transfer and procurement of reservations. According to their website, Appointment Traders brands themselves as the eBay of time slots, allowing users to "buy someone else's confirmed reservation, or create a reward (bid) for someone to secure one on [the user's] behalf."^[1] If a person wants to dine at a restaurant on a particular day but there are no available reservations on Appointment Trader, they can set a bid for a concierge to try and snag the reservation on their behalf, similar to bidding on eBay. Appointment Trader suggests a range of pricing to start the bidding out. Once the price is set, community users will receive a notification and begin trying to secure the reservation for the user. If successful, the user gets a premium reservation and the concierge earns money, often hundreds of dollars for a single reservation at a highly coveted restaurant. According to a recent New Yorker article, many of these concierges are actually bots created by tech-savvy users to snap up reservations faster than most humans could, making it difficult to gauge how many freelance concierges operate on Appointment Traders.^[2] Still, the profits can be large: one college sophomore made $70,000 in a single year from selling restaurant reservations in New York, a city he did not live in.^[3]

The development of a secondary market for reservations that are typically free has gamified the reservation system, emboldening resellers to garner large profits at the expense of average diners. Typically, the lucrative reservations are for upscale dining that caters to elite clientele. However, even the most casual diner occasionally splurges on a celebratory night out and would now have to compete with bots and zealous concierges for a reservation or would have to purchase a reservation for an exorbitant fee. These markets are already becoming commonplace in popular restaurant destinations like New York and Los Angeles. However, they are spreading across the nation and even more modest restaurant destinations have begun to offer reservations for a price. For example, Appointment Traders allows users to place a concierge bid for Kru Contemporary Japanese Cuisine in Sacramento. As of the writing of this analysis, bidders can offer $711 for a table for two at 5 PM on Saturday, March 14^th. Notably, $711 is slightly below the "hot zone" that touts "+25% higher fill rate vs. average." If bidders wanted a higher likelihood of getting into Kru, the sliding bar suggests they offer $1733 to concierges. These fees do not include food or tips, essentially ensuring that lower income diners could not participate in fine dining opportunities.

These reservation systems not only undermine casual diners but can actively harm restaurants. Restaurant owners pride themselves on manufacturing guests' experiences during every step of their interaction, from scrolling the menu on the restaurant's website to the first time they come in for a meal. These secondary markets can impact diners' perceptions of restaurants, especially if the experience does not fit the high price tag that diners may pay for a table.

Importantly, these markets do not rely on consent from restaurants, allowing anyone with time and connections to profit off the backs of restaurants. Restaurants, especially those that are locally-owned, often rely on reservations to predict how much food to prepare and how many staff to have on any given night. Missed reservations, while not impacting the sellers of the reservation (they get money whether or not the purchaser actually goes to the restaurant), can be detrimental to a restaurant's profits.^[4] Restaurants typically operate on razor-thin margins, with average profit margins just hitting double digits (10.5%) this year for the first time since 2022.^[5] For context, real estate investment trust margins often hover around 20-25% net profit margins.^[6] Additionally, restaurants are often forced to screen callers for fake numbers and bots, leading some to ask for photo identification to make a reservation, which can make "diners feel like they’re in a T.S.A.-screening line."^[7] Reservation piracy can therefore have devastating effects on the restaurant industry and patrons seeking a celebratory night out.

According to the Author

California's restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant's inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent. AB 1640 protects restaurants and consumers by prohibiting these deceptive practices, ensuring that only those with a written agreement can list or sell reservations. This bill also establishes penalties for violators, empowers the Attorney General to take legal action, and creates a state fund to support enforcement efforts. By holding bad actors accountable, AB 1640 safeguards small businesses and ensures a fair, transparent reservation process for all.

Arguments in Support

The California Restaurant Association argues in support:

Eating establishments constantly look for ways to help maximize occupancy in their businesses, which increasingly includes the use of integrated reservation systems. While restaurateurs use these systems to make booking reservations seamless for customers, there has been a rise in unauthorized third-party reservation services that use bots and fake profiles to hoard reservations and then sell them for a profit – monetizing a restaurant's inventory of tables in a dining room and creating arbitrary economic barriers for guest access.

[…]

Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Possible costs (General Fund, special funds) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of an unknown amount.  Actual costs will depend on whether the Attorney General pursues enforcement actions, and, if so, the level of additional staffing DOJ needs to handle the related workload.  If DOJ hires staff to handle enforcement actions authorized by this bill, the department will incur significant costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually at a minimum.  If DOJ does not pursue enforcement as authorized by this bill, the department would likely not incur any costs.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.
3. Cost pressure (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount for establishing the Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund. Potential offsetting penalty revenues from the fund intended for enforcement activities.

VOTES

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Lee, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: March 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kate Davis / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0002944

1. Appointment Trader, “How AppointmentTrader Works for Customers,”. ↑

2. Adam Iscoe, “Why You Can’t Get a Restaurant Reservation,” The New Yorker, (Apr 22, 2024). ↑

3. Alex Mitchell, “I made $70K selling NYC restaurant reservations – and I don’t even live in New York,” The New York Post, (Apr 25, 2024). ↑

4. Alex Mitchell, “I made $70K selling NYC restaurant reservations,” supra. ↑

5. Charles Smith, “Restaurant Profit Margins Just Hit Double Digits for the First Time Since 2022,” Smith Allen, (Feb 28, 2026). ↑

6. Aswath Damodaran, “Margins by Sector (US)”, (Jan 2026), Stern NYU. ↑

7. Adam Iscoe, “Why You Can’t Get a Restaurant Reservation,” supra. ↑

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1640

Author:(Stefani) – As Amended Ver:March 2, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits the sale of a restaurant reservation for more than what was originally charged for that reservation without the restaurant’s consent. The bill also authorizes a public prosecutor to bring a civil action for civil penalties up to $1,000, as well as a private right of action for an individual who suffers actual harm.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Possible costs (General Fund, special funds) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of an unknown amount.  Actual costs will depend on whether the Attorney General pursues enforcement actions, and, if so, the level of additional staffing DOJ needs to handle the related workload.  If DOJ hires staff to handle enforcement actions authorized by this bill, the department will incur significant costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually at a minimum.  If DOJ does not pursue enforcement as authorized by this bill, the department would likely not incur any costs.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.
3. Cost pressure (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount for establishing the Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund. Potential offsetting penalty revenues from the fund intended for enforcement activities.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.

COMMENTS:

According to the author, “California’s restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant’s inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent.” The author appears to identify a problem concentrated in the state’s most urban areas. Within the last few years, would-be diners in popular restaurants might have to bid for restaurant reservations or purchase them from third-party sellers because original reservations are scooped by online bots. The Privacy Committee’s analysis describes this restaurant reservation “scalping” phenomenon in detail, explaining how it increases potential costs to consumers and may harm a restaurant’s reputation and lead to economic losses due to over-purchasing of ingredients and overstaffing. This bill tries to tackle the problem by prohibiting any person from selling restaurant reservations for more than was paid for the reservation unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant. The bill also authorizes a public prosecutor to bring a civil action for civil penalties up to $1,000, as well as a private right of action for an individual who suffers actual harm.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 7, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1640

Author:(Stefani) – As Amended Ver:March 2, 2026

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE ENACT THE CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT RESERVATION ANTIPIRACY ACT TO PROHIBIT the THIRD-PARTY RESTAURANT RESERVATION MARKET FROM SELLING A RESTAURANT RESERVATION FOR A HIGHER PRICE THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY OBTAINED?

SYNOPSIS

Typically, diners make reservations at restaurants by contacting the business directly. Most of the time there is no charge to make a reservation, although more popular restaurants or those with higher demand may charge a deposit that is later credited to the customer’s final bill. In the past few years, however, getting a reservation has seemingly grown even more difficult with the rise of businesses that employ bots to gobble up dozens of reservations and then turn around and sell them for a profit. This practice not only makes it more difficult and costly for diners to make reservations, but risks negatively impacting restaurants who may be left holding the bag for reservations that are never actually used by a human being. This bill takes aim at this new practice by prohibiting the sale of a reservation for more than what was originally charged, without the restaurant’s consent. The bill authorizes a public prosecutor to bring a civil action to enforce the bill, including collecting a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation of the bill’s provisions, as well as a private right of action for an individual who suffers actual harm.

This bill is sponsored by the California Restaurant Association. It enjoys support from a number of restaurants and business advocates and the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. There is no known opposition. This bill was previously heard by the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection where it was approved on consent.

SUMMARY: Enacts the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “restaurant” as a retail food establishment that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to a consumer.
2. Prohibits a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer of, a reservation for a restaurant for an amount higher than that person paid to acquire the reservation. Exempts a person that has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount.
3. Makes a person who violates or causes another person to violate the bill’s provisions liable for the following, as applicable, in a civil action brought by the Attorney General, or any county counsel or city attorney, in a court of competent jurisdiction:
   1. A civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation;
   2. Injunctive or declaratory relief;
   3. Reasonable attorney’s fees.
4. Authorizes an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of the violation to bring a civil action to recover all of the following:
   1. Actual damages;
   2. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
   3. Injunctive or declaratory relief;
   4. Any other relief the court deems proper.
5. Establishes in the State Treasury the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund, into which any civil penalty recovered by the Attorney General must be deposited.
6. Makes moneys in the fund available, only upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of administering the Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility. (Business and Professions Code section 22599.)
2. Makes it unlawful for a food delivery platform to charge a customer any purchase price for food or beverage that is higher than the price posted on the food delivery platform’s internet website by the food facility at the time of the orders or retain any portion of amounts designated as a tip or gratuity. (Business and Professions Code Section 22599.1 (a).)
3. Requires a food delivery platform to prominently disclose to the customer and to the food facility an accurate, clearly identified, and itemized cost breakdown of each transaction. (Business and Professions Code Section 22599.1 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: AB 1640 takes aim at the third party restaurant reservation market, which appears to pose a significant threat to both consumers and restaurants alike. According to the author:

California’s restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant’s inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent. AB 1640 protects restaurants and consumers by prohibiting these deceptive practices, ensuring that only those with a written agreement can list or sell reservations. This bill also establishes penalties for violators, empowers the Attorney General to take legal action, and creates a state fund to support enforcement efforts. By holding bad actors accountable, AB 1640 safeguards small businesses and ensures a fair, transparent reservation process for all.

The third-party restaurant reservation market. Traditionally, a would-be diner can obtain a reservation at a popular (or unpopular for that matter) restaurant by calling the restaurant directly. There is usually no charge to make a reservation, although some restaurants may charge a small fee to discourage no-shows, refundable if the reservation is cancelled in a timely manner. More recently consumers have made reservations through phone or computer applications such as Yelp or OpenTable. These businesses can provide reservation coordination services to countless restaurants at once, and the consumer can quickly see whether there is a reservation available on a given date and time. With convenience, however, also comes predatory opportunity. Within the last few years, consumers have been given yet another option – bidding for restaurant reservations or purchasing them from third party sellers. Under this model one company or platform will scoop up most if not all of a restaurant’s available reservations and then turn around to sell them at a profit to diners.

The author and sponsors posit that this causes two issues: first, the restaurants cannot get an accurate gauge of how many of their reservations are actually going to be filled by real-life diners. Instead, they may be left holding the (grocery) bag, having planned to serve 100 dinners through 50 reservations, when in reality 30 of those reservations were taken up by the third-party seller and never transferred to a person. Second, the practice artificially inflates the price of making a reservation at a restaurant. If all the reservations at the hottest new restaurant in town are taken by a single business, then would-be consumers have no other option but to pay for what would otherwise be a free reservation at a price controlled by the platform.

This bill addresses this novel issue by prohibiting a person from selling or transferring a reservation for a restaurant for an amount higher than they paid to acquire it, or facilitating the same. In other words, if someone pays nothing at all for a reservation at The French Laundry, then they could not pass it along to someone else for a dollar. The bill provides an exception where the restaurant has a written agreement to the higher amount. This exemption would seem to allow restaurants to make a personal choice to enter into an agreement, for example with Yelp, to facilitate the promotion and coordination of reservations and include as part of their agreement permission for Yelp to sell the reservation at a higher price. On first impression it seems this permission may slightly undercut the value of this bill to the consumer, however, a third-party seller that sets too high a price may risk losing the business of the restaurant as the restaurant loses out on potential diners. In either case, this policy is within the jurisdiction of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

What is within the jurisdiction of this analysis on the other hand is the bill’s proposed enforcement mechanism. This bill would make a person who sells or facilitates the sale of a reservation for a higher price in violation of its provisions liable, in a claim brought by a public prosecutor, for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A prosecutor could also seek injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys fees. The bill also authorizes a private right of action for an individual or entity who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation, and swaps out the civil penalty authorized to the public prosecutor in favor of a recovery of actual damages, along with any other relief the court deems proper. These enforcement options appear appropriately crafted to help public prosecutors enforce the bills provisions to encourage compliance and therefore the health of local restaurant economies, as well as allow individual restaurants and their owners to seek adequate redress.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the California Restaurant Association. It enjoys support from Booking.com, Epic Steak, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, Karl Strauss Brewing Co., Resy, the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and group of Sacramento-based restaurants. In support of the bill, the California Restaurant Association submits:

This bill protects restaurants and consumers by banning a deceptive practice that results in a loss of revenue for establishments that experience reservation no-shows and reduced opportunities for the public to dine at their favorite establishments.

Eating establishments constantly look for ways to help maximize occupancy in their businesses, which increasingly includes the use of integrated reservation systems. While restaurateurs use these systems to make booking reservations seamless for customers, there has been a rise in unauthorized third-party reservation services that use bots and fake profiles to hoard reservations and then sell them for a profit – monetizing a restaurant’s inventory of tables in a dining room and creating arbitrary economic barriers for guest access. Restaurants invest in staffing, product procurement, developing brand reputation, and reservation services. When these third parties insert themselves into that system without an agreement and intrude on the complex system for managing reservations, it creates several hardships for consumers and restaurants. Firstly, customer confusion – guests may assume that the establishment is involved in the reservation sales, possibly devaluing the experience for the guest because of the increased expectations that come with an inflated price. Consequently, this has created a system where only people with the means to pay for inflated reservation prices can acquire them and enjoy these restaurants.

Moreover, operational disruptions may arise from the mishandling of reservations by these third parties, potentially harming the guest experience and the reputation of the restaurant. Similarly, when these third parties are unable to resell reservations, nobody shows up – resulting in a situation where employees lose a tipped-earning opportunity, and the restaurants experience a revenue loss. These no-shows are especially harmful for neighborhood restaurants that rely on legitimate reservations to plan for anticipated costs.

Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Restaurant Association (sponsor)

Booking.com, B.v.
California Attractions and Parks Association

California Travel Association

Epic Steak
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Karl Strauss Brewing Co
Resy
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Zinfandel Grill, Prelude Kitchen & Bar, Interlude Kitchen & Bar

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: March 25, 2026

Fiscal:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1640 (

Author:Stefani) – As Amended Ver:March 2, 2026

SUBJECT: California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act

SYNOPSIS

Restaurants are a cornerstone of American social life: job promotions, birthdays, anniversaries, and more are often best celebrated over a meal with family and friends at a favorite restaurant or a trendy new eatery. However, a growing market for “pirated” restaurant reservations seeks to profit off the backs of these establishments’ hard-earned reputations by price-gouging reservations that are typically free. Customers are forced to either fight for reservations directly from the restaurant or pay exorbitant fees for a table. Restaurants are also harmed by reservation piracy: selling reservations may cause restaurants to believe that they are booked when they actually are not, leading to over-purchasing of ingredients and overstaffing. Restaurant owners lose profit, staff lose tips, and customers miss out on a great meal.

This bill, sponsored by the California Restaurant Association, seeks to mitigate this issue by prohibiting a person from selling a restaurant reservation for more than the amount paid for the reservation, unless the person has express written authorization from the restaurant. Violators would be subject to a civil action brought by public prosecutors or private entities harmed by a violation. The bill has no registered opposition.

If passed by this Committee, the bill will next be heard by the Judiciary Committee.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a food delivery platform from arranging for the delivery of an order from a food facility without first obtaining an agreement with the food facility expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food facility. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22599(a).)
2. Establishes the Unfair Competition Law, which provides a statutory cause of action for any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, including over the internet. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
3. Prohibits a person from using, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a mark registered under the Model State Trademark Law in connection with the sale, distribution, offering for sale, or advertising of goods or services if such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive as to the source of origin of the goods or services. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 14245(a)(1).)
4. Pursuant to federal law, establishes the Lanham Act, which, among other things, prohibits the use in commerce, without the consent of the registrant, of any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services if such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a).)
5. Prohibits a person from selling, or offering to sell, an appointment with the Department of Motor Vehicle. (Veh. Code § 1680(a).)

THIS BILL:

1. Defines “restaurant” as a retail food establishment that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to a customer.
2. Prohibits a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer, of a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than the person paid for the reservation. Exempts from this prohibition, a person who has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount.
3. Allows the Attorney General, or any county counsel or city attorney, to bring civil action against violators for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, injunctive or declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees.
4. Provides individuals or entities who suffer actual harm with a private right of action to pursue civil litigation against violators for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, attorney’s fees, and any other relief a court deems proper.
5. Establishes the California Restaurant Reservation AntiPiracy Act Fund in the State Treasury to collect any civil penalties collected by the Attorney General for the purposes of administering the bill.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author:

California’s restaurants are essential to our communities and local economies, yet they are increasingly targeted by unauthorized reservation resellers that exploit their reservation systems and monetize a restaurant’s inventory, tables, and experiences – all without consent. AB 1640 protects restaurants and consumers by prohibiting these deceptive practices, ensuring that only those with a written agreement can list or sell reservations. This bill also establishes penalties for violators, empowers the Attorney General to take legal action, and creates a state fund to support enforcement efforts. By holding bad actors accountable, AB 1640 safeguards small businesses and ensures a fair, transparent reservation process for all.

2) Background. Many restaurants faced significant challenges following the COVID-19 pandemic, including food cost spikes, understaffing, and pressures to continue operating in the height of shelter-in-place orders. Outside dining and takeout options provided restaurants with a means of income and patrons with a semblance of normalcy. Third-party apps that offered food delivery grew and have remained popular long after lockdown. As the nation began to recover from the economic and health toll that the pandemic took on the population, restaurants became a centerpiece for the return to normal. California hosts thousands of restaurants – roughly 90,000 to 100,000 – making it the largest restaurant market in the United States.^[1] The Golden State’s restaurant industry generates over $220 billion in annual sales and is the second largest employer in the private sector.^[2]

The return to in-person dining increased restaurant partnerships with third-party reservation platforms such as Resy, OpenTable, and Tock. Typically, restaurants are charged a monthly subscription fee to use the platform and the platform then makes commissions on every booked table. For example, OpenTable receives $1 for every seat that is booked through their platform.^[3] DoorDash, a common third-party food delivery app, made headlines in 2026 for their acquisition of SevenRooms, a reservation platform that allows direct bookings through a restaurant’s website.^[4] The $1.2 billion acquisition has allowed DoorDash to enter the third-party marketplace for restaurant reservations, demonstrating the profitability for companies (and individuals) involved in coordinating restaurant reservations. These partnerships have relieved restaurants of the strain of managing their own reservation system, expanded customer access to dining options, and have increased consumer exposure to different restaurants. However, an emerging market for restaurant reservations has consumers and restaurants alike worried about the future of restaurant profitability.

The rise of secondary markets for restaurant reservations. As soon as a burgeoning market emerges, a secondary market often follows close on its heels. Anyone who has attended a concert or event at a large venue has experienced “scalpers” – resellers in parking lots trying to upsell desperate attendees tickets to a sold-out show. California is considering measures to counteract the secondary market for ticketing in the past legislative year, such as AB 1349 (Bryan, 2025). However, an important distinction in these secondary markets must be made. Whereas tickets buy entrance into a paid event, restaurant reservations are typically held free of charge.

Secondary markets for restaurant reservations rely on sites like Cita Marketplace and Appointment Traders, which act as marketplaces for the transfer and procurement of reservations. According to their website, Appointment Traders brands themselves as the eBay of time slots, allowing users to “buy someone else’s confirmed reservation, or create a reward (bid) for someone to secure one on [the user’s] behalf.”^[5] If a person wants to dine at a restaurant on a particular day but there are no available reservations on Appointment Trader, they can set a bid for a concierge to try and snag the reservation on their behalf, similar to bidding on eBay. Appointment Trader suggests a range of pricing to start the bidding out. Once the price is set, community users will receive a notification and begin trying to secure the reservation for the user. If successful, the user gets a premium reservation and the concierge earns money, often hundreds of dollars for a single reservation at a highly coveted restaurant. According to a recent New Yorker article, many of these concierges are actually bots created by tech-savvy users to snap up reservations faster than most humans could, making it difficult to gauge how many freelance concierges operate on Appointment Traders.^[6] Still, the profits can be large: one college sophomore made $70,000 in a single year from selling restaurant reservations in New York, a city he did not live in.^[7]

The problems with restaurant reservation piracy. The development of a secondary market for reservations that are typically free has gamified the reservation system, emboldening resellers to garner large profits at the expense of average diners. Typically, the lucrative reservations are for upscale dining that caters to elite clientele. However, even the most casual diner occasionally splurges on a celebratory night out and would now have to compete with bots and zealous concierges for a reservation or would have to purchase a reservation for an exorbitant fee. These markets are already becoming commonplace in popular restaurant destinations like New York and Los Angeles. However, they are spreading across the nation and even more modest restaurant destinations have begun to offer reservations for a price. For example, Appointment Traders allows users to place a concierge bid for Kru Contemporary Japanese Cuisine in Sacramento. As of the writing of this analysis, bidders can offer $711 for a table for two at 5 PM on Saturday, March 14th (see screenshot below). Notably, $711 is slightly below the “hot zone” that touts “+25% higher fill rate vs. average.” If bidders wanted a higher likelihood of getting into Kru, the sliding bar suggests they offer $1733 to concierges (see screenshot below). These fees do not include food or tips, essentially ensuring that lower income diners could not participate in fine dining opportunities.

Source: https://appointmenttrader.com/

Source: https://appointmenttrader.com/

These reservation systems not only undermine casual diners but can actively harm restaurants. Restaurant owners pride themselves on manufacturing guests’ experiences during every step of their interaction, from scrolling the menu on the restaurant’s website to the first time they come in for a meal. These secondary markets can impact diners’ perceptions of restaurants, especially if the experience does not fit the high price tag that diners may pay for a table.

Importantly, these markets do not rely on consent from restaurants, allowing anyone with time and connections to profit off the backs of restaurants. Restaurants, especially those that are locally-owned, often rely on reservations to predict how much food to prepare and how many staff to have on any given night. Missed reservations, while not impacting the sellers of the reservation (they get money whether or not the purchaser actually goes to the restaurant), can be detrimental to a restaurant’s profits.^[8] Restaurants typically operate on razor-thin margins, with average profit margins just hitting double digits (10.5%) this year for the first time since 2022.^[9] For context, real estate investment trust margins often hover around 20-25% net profit margins.^[10] Additionally, restaurants are often forced to screen callers for fake numbers and bots, leading some to ask for photo identification to make a reservation, which can make “diners feel like they’re in a T.S.A.-screening line.”^[11] Reservation piracy can therefore have devastating effects on the restaurant industry and patrons seeking a celebratory night out.

3) This bill would restrict restaurant reservation piracy. In response to growing sales of restaurant reservations, some states have taken measures attempting to counteract reservation piracy. In 2025, New York’s S.9365A came into effect, which limited the listing or selling of restaurant reservations to websites or mobile apps that have a written agreement with the restaurants.^[12] Thus, only platforms with established relationships can sell reservations, allowing restaurants and authorized platforms to charge for reservations as they see fit. Nevada, Louisiana, Illinois, and Florida have recently passed their own versions of reservation anti-piracy laws that mirror New York’s.^[13]

This bill similarly prohibits any person from selling restaurant reservations for more than was paid for the reservation unless the person has a written agreement with the restaurant. This protects restaurants’ ability to choose whether and how to work with third parties, ensuring that reservations are made available on restaurants’ terms – an important safeguard for small restaurants and their patrons. And consumers who pay for reservations may still recoup the cost of paying for a high-priced reservation they can’t use; they just wouldn’t be able to charge a markup over that cost. To ensure its provisions are enforceable, the bill provides that public prosecutors may initiate a civil action against violators, who are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Additionally, entities that are harmed by a violation of the bill may bring a civil action to recover actual damages.

The bill is similar to last year’s AB 1245 (Stefani), which the author opted not to move due to drafting concerns. This year’s bill is straightforwardly drafted and does not raise the concerns of its predecessor.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Restaurants Association, sponsors of the bill, write in support:

This bill protects restaurants and consumers by banning a deceptive practice that results in a loss of revenue for businesses that experience reservation no-shows and reduced opportunities for the public to dine at their favorite establishments.

The CRA is the unified voice of the restaurant industry – advocating for nearly 22,000 neighborhood restaurants. Our members constantly look for ways to help maximize occupancy in their establishments, which increasingly includes the use of integrated reservation systems. While restaurateurs use these systems to make booking reservations seamless for customers, there has been a rise in unauthorized third-party reservation services that use bots and fake profiles to hoard reservations and then resell them for a profit – monetizing a restaurant’s inventory of tables in a dining room and creating arbitrary economic barriers for guest access.

Restaurants invest in staffing, product procurement, developing brand reputation, and reservation services. When these third parties insert themselves into that system without an agreement and harm the complex system present for reservations, it creates several hardships for consumers and restaurants. Firstly, customer confusion – guests may assume that the establishment is involved in the reservation markup, possibly devaluing the experience for the guest because of the increased expectations that come with an inflated price. Consequently, this has created a system where only people with the means to pay for inflated reservation prices can acquire them and enjoy these restaurants.

Moreover, operational disruptions may arise from the mishandling of reservations by these third parties, potentially harming the guest experience and the reputation of the restaurant. Similarly, when these third parties are unable to resell reservations, nobody shows up – resulting in a situation where employees lose a tipped-earning opportunity, and the restaurants experience a revenue loss. These no-shows are especially harmful for neighborhood restaurants that rely on legitimate reservations to plan for anticipated costs.

Ultimately, unauthorized third-party reservation companies profit by charging exorbitant fees for reservations while making no investment or taking any risk in that same restaurant. AB 1640 is a sensible measure that helps restore control of a dining room back to restaurant operators, while removing artificial economic barriers of entry for potential guests.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Booking.com, B.v.
California Restaurant Association
Karl Strauss Brewing Co
OpenTable
Resy
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Kate Davis / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. Ridvika Arora, “California Restaurant Industry Statistics: Market Trends, Employment Data & Growth Insights,” Restroworks, (Jan 9, 2026), https://www.restroworks.com/blog/california-restaurant-industry-statistics/. ↑

2. National Restaurant Association, “California Restaurant Industry Impact,” (2025), https://restaurant.org/getmedia/3fc6ad4f-79b0-480e-9e7c-fee97d7d2c35/2026_state_fact_sheets_ca.pdf. ↑

3. OpenTable, “Find the plan that fits your business,” https://www.opentable.com/restaurant-solutions/plans/. ↑

4. Amelia Lucas, “Restaurant reservation wars heat up as DoorDash enters the arena with Resy, OpenTable,” MSN, (Feb 25, 2026), https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/restaurant-reservation-wars-heat-up-as-doordash-enters-the-arena-with-resy-opentable/ar-AA1X2wSL?ocid=BingNewsVerp; Simply Wall St, “DoorDash Refines Global Footprint And Enters Reservations With SevenRooms Deal,” UK Finance, (Feb 28, 2026), https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/doordash-refines-global-footprint-enters-070958569.html. ↑

5. Appointment Trader, “How AppointmentTrader Works for Customers,” https://appointmenttrader.com/how-it-works/customers. ↑

6. Adam Iscoe, “Why You Can’t Get a Restaurant Reservation,” The New Yorker, (Apr 22, 2024), https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/why-you-cant-get-a-restaurant-reservation. ↑

7. Alex Mitchell, “I made $70K selling NYC restaurant reservations – and I don’t even live in New York,” The New York Post, (Apr 25, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/04/25/lifestyle/nycs-restaurant-reservation-black-market-is-raking-in-big-bucks-for-resellers-its-bad-for-business/. ↑

8. Alex Mitchell, “I made $70K selling NYC restaurant reservations,” supra. ↑

9. Charles Smith, “Restaurant Profit Margins Just Hit Double Digits for the First Time Since 2022,” Smith Allen, (Feb 28, 2026), https://smithallengroup.com/insights/restaurant-profit-margins-double-digits-2026-california/. ↑

10. Aswath Damodaran, “Margins by Sector (US)”, (Jan 2026), Stern NYU, https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html. ↑

11. Adam Iscoe, “Why You Can’t Get a Restaurant Reservation,” supra. ↑

12. Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act, N.Y. Gen Bus LAW § 391-w (Fernandez 2023). ↑

13. S.B. 169, 83^rd Leg. (Nev. 2025).; La. R.S. § 51:3291 (2025); Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act, Pub. Act. 104-0227, 2025.; Ch. 2025-55, Fla. Laws 509.104. ↑