Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would exempt from this prohibition the sale or transfer of a reservation, for no more than the amount paid, by an individual who purchased the reservation, if the golf course operator does not clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would exempt from this prohibition the sale or transfer of a reservation, for no more than the amount paid, by an individual who purchased the reservation, if the golf course operator does not clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would exempt from this prohibition the sale or transfer of a reservation, for no more than the amount paid, by an individual who purchased the reservation, if the golf course operator does not clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), defines unfair competition to mean and include an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any false representations to the public. Existing law makes a person who engages in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, and requires that this penalty be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by specified persons and entities, including cities.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would exempt from this prohibition the sale or transfer of a reservation, for no more than the amount paid, by an individual who purchased the reservation, if the golf course operator does not offer refunds. clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), defines unfair competition to mean and include an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any false representations to the public. Existing law makes a person who engages in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, and requires that this penalty be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by specified persons and entities, including cities.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would exempt from this prohibition the sale or transfer of a reservation, for no more than the amount paid, by an individual who purchased the reservation, if the golf course operator does not offer refunds. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), defines unfair competition to mean and include an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any false representations to the public. Existing law makes a person who engages in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, and requires that this penalty be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by specified persons and entities, including cities.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Existing law authorizes a city to purchase, lease, receive, hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and control and dispose of that property for the common benefit. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city to acquire property needed for specified purposes, including golf courses.

Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), defines unfair competition to mean and include an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any false representations to the public. Existing law makes a person who engages in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, and requires that this penalty be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by specified persons and entities, including cities.

This bill would prohibit an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator, as specified. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1954

Author:(Ward)

As Amended Ver:August 4, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits unauthorized third-party platforms from listing, selling, or reselling tee times at publicly owned golf courses unless they have the golf course operator's written permission, while still allowing golfers to transfer a reservation at cost if the golf course operator does not have a cancellation policy posted on the website where the reservation was made.

Senate Amendments

Senate amendments clarify that if a golf course operator does not clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.

COMMENTS

Background. California has long prohibited unfair business practices and misleading advertising through the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. The UCL is intentionally broad and serves as the state's principal civil enforcement mechanism against unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Likewise, the False Advertising Law prohibits businesses from making misleading representations about goods or services offered to consumers.

As online reservation platforms have expanded, questions have arisen about secondary resale of reservations for public and consumer-facing services. Similar concerns have arisen in connection with ticket sales, restaurant reservations, campground reservations, and municipal golf tee times, raising questions about consumer access to limited public resources and the use of automated technologies to obtain reservations for resale. Municipal golf courses are intended to provide affordable public recreational opportunities through reservation systems that allow golfers to book tee times directly with the course. According to the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, however, unauthorized "tee time brokering" has become an increasing challenge at Los Angeles municipal golf courses. The Department explains that brokers reserve publicly available tee times as soon as they are released and advertise those reservations for resale, later canceling and rebooking the reservation in the purchaser's name.

Public reporting has documented the practical effects of these practices on consumers. According to the Los Angeles Times, golfers reported that desirable weekend tee times at popular municipal courses often disappeared within seconds of becoming available, with some subsequently being offered for resale online for additional fees. In response, the City of Los Angeles implemented a pilot reservation deposit program intended to discourage speculative reservations. The City later reported that reservations that were booked and subsequently canceled declined by nearly 95% during the program's first six months, and golfers reported improved access to tee times.

A 2025 article in Golfweek highlighted that "Between 2021 and 2023, the Kim brothers operated a golf tee time brokering business in which they reserved golf tee times online, including at public golf courses, and resold them to members of the public for a fee, frequently in violation of municipal regulations. The brothers marketed, solicited, and communicated with their customers through various social medial platforms, including KakaoTalk, an instant messaging application. As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic."

AB 1954 would establish that the unauthorized resale or brokering of reservations at municipally owned golf courses constitutes an unlawful business practice enforceable under California's existing consumer protection laws. As a result, businesses that facilitate or profit from unauthorized reservation brokering could be subject to the remedies available under the UCL, including injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties in actions brought by authorized public prosecutors. The bill does not prohibit municipally owned golf courses from contracting with authorized reservation vendors or technology providers. Rather, it seeks to prohibit the unauthorized commercial resale of tee times made available through public reservation systems.

According to the Author

"Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities."

Arguments in Support

According to a coalition of golf associations, including the sponsor of the bill, the Californian Alliance for Golf, in support, "AB 1954 would give the state's cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy that they would have to initiate of their own volition and at their own expense to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent (written agreement) of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.

"To be clear; it's important to emphasize that this bill does not in any way affect agreements that are freely entered into for ostensible mutual benefit. It only affects brokering without the consent of the public agency that owns the golf course or the management group that the public agency has put under contract to operate its golf course. There are many well-known and popular vendors in that space. They operate by written agreements that bring benefit to both municipality and vendor, not to mention golfers, and would not be affected by AB 1954."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill was keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel. According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the bill will result in costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice to bring enforcement actions as authorized by this bill and ongoing cost pressures of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts in additional workload resulting from adding an activity to UCL. 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 bill left the Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, indicating a very small or insignificant state financial impact.

VOTES:

ASM ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, AND TOURISM: 8-0-1

YES: Ward, Lackey, Elhawary, Jeff Gonzalez, McKinnor, Ortega, Valencia, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Quirk-Silva

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

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

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: 70-0-10

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Carrillo, Chen, Flora, Garcia, Hoover, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Wilson

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

UPDATED

VERSION: August 4, 2026

CONSULTANT: Brian V. Anderson, Jr. / A.,E.,S., & T. / (916) 319-3450 FN: 0003413

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1954

Author:(Ward)

As Amended Ver:August 4, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits unauthorized third-party platforms from listing, selling, or reselling tee times at publicly owned golf courses unless they have the golf course operator's written permission, while still allowing golfers to transfer a reservation at cost if the golf course operator does not have a cancellation policy posted on the website where the reservation was made.

Senate Amendments

Senate amendments clarify that if a golf course operator does not clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.

COMMENTS

Background. California has long prohibited unfair business practices and misleading advertising through the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. The UCL is intentionally broad and serves as the state's principal civil enforcement mechanism against unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Likewise, the False Advertising Law prohibits businesses from making misleading representations about goods or services offered to consumers.

As online reservation platforms have expanded, questions have arisen about secondary resale of reservations for public and consumer-facing services. Similar concerns have arisen in connection with ticket sales, restaurant reservations, campground reservations, and municipal golf tee times, raising questions about consumer access to limited public resources and the use of automated technologies to obtain reservations for resale. Municipal golf courses are intended to provide affordable public recreational opportunities through reservation systems that allow golfers to book tee times directly with the course. According to the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, however, unauthorized "tee time brokering" has become an increasing challenge at Los Angeles municipal golf courses. The Department explains that brokers reserve publicly available tee times as soon as they are released and advertise those reservations for resale, later canceling and rebooking the reservation in the purchaser's name.

Public reporting has documented the practical effects of these practices on consumers. According to the Los Angeles Times, golfers reported that desirable weekend tee times at popular municipal courses often disappeared within seconds of becoming available, with some subsequently being offered for resale online for additional fees. In response, the City of Los Angeles implemented a pilot reservation deposit program intended to discourage speculative reservations. The City later reported that reservations that were booked and subsequently canceled declined by nearly 95% during the program's first six months, and golfers reported improved access to tee times.

A 2025 article in Golfweek highlighted that "Between 2021 and 2023, the Kim brothers operated a golf tee time brokering business in which they reserved golf tee times online, including at public golf courses, and resold them to members of the public for a fee, frequently in violation of municipal regulations. The brothers marketed, solicited, and communicated with their customers through various social medial platforms, including KakaoTalk, an instant messaging application. As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic."

AB 1954 would establish that the unauthorized resale or brokering of reservations at municipally owned golf courses constitutes an unlawful business practice enforceable under California's existing consumer protection laws. As a result, businesses that facilitate or profit from unauthorized reservation brokering could be subject to the remedies available under the UCL, including injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties in actions brought by authorized public prosecutors. The bill does not prohibit municipally owned golf courses from contracting with authorized reservation vendors or technology providers. Rather, it seeks to prohibit the unauthorized commercial resale of tee times made available through public reservation systems.

According to the Author

"Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities."

Arguments in Support

According to a coalition of golf associations, including the sponsor of the bill, the Californian Alliance for Golf, in support, "AB 1954 would give the state's cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy that they would have to initiate of their own volition and at their own expense to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent (written agreement) of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.

"To be clear; it's important to emphasize that this bill does not in any way affect agreements that are freely entered into for ostensible mutual benefit. It only affects brokering without the consent of the public agency that owns the golf course or the management group that the public agency has put under contract to operate its golf course. There are many well-known and popular vendors in that space. They operate by written agreements that bring benefit to both municipality and vendor, not to mention golfers, and would not be affected by AB 1954."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill was keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel. According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the bill will result in costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice to bring enforcement actions as authorized by this bill and ongoing cost pressures of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts in additional workload resulting from adding an activity to UCL. 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 bill left the Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, indicating a very small or insignificant state financial impact.

VOTES:

ASM ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, AND TOURISM: 8-0-1

YES: Ward, Lackey, Elhawary, Jeff Gonzalez, McKinnor, Ortega, Valencia, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Quirk-Silva

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

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

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: 70-0-10

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Carrillo, Chen, Flora, Garcia, Hoover, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: August 4, 2026

CONSULTANT: Brian V. Anderson, Jr. / A.,E.,S., & T. / (916) 319-3450 FN: 0003413

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 1954

Author: Ward (D)

Amended: 8/4/26 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: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Municipal golf courses: reservations

SOURCE: California Alliance for Golf

DIGEST:

This bill enacts the Protecting Access to Reservations Act, which prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.

Floor Amendments of 8/4/26 address concerns from the Department of Justice.

ANALYSIS: Existing law:

1. Establishes the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and defines “unfair competition” to mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
2. Provides that any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of Business and Professions Code Section 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but these limitations do not apply to claims brought under this chapter by the Attorney General, or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203.)
3. Holds any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, by any district attorney, by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, by any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a county counsel of any county within which a city has a population in excess of 750,000, by any city attorney of any city and county, or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor, in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206(a).)
4. Requires that the penalties collected pursuant to the UCL to be used for enforcement of consumer protection laws and provides for the distribution of those funds based on the entity bringing the action, as specified. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206(c).)
5. 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).)

This bill:

1. Enacts the Protecting Access to Reservations Act (Act).
2. Prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.
   1. If a golf course operator does not post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.
   2. The authority provided in a written agreement does not extend to an affiliate website or other internet platform unless the written agreement explicitly provides that authority to that affiliate website or internet platform.
3. Provides that any violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL.
4. Defines the following terms for purposes of the Act.
   1. “Affiliate” means any entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, another entity.
   2. “Golf course” means a golf course and its accessory facilities and services that are owned by a local agency. “Golf course” includes clubhouses, driving ranges, golf cart storage, locker and shower facilities, and sales facilities.
   3. “Golf course operator” means either of the following:
      1. a local agency operating a golf course; or
      2. an entity operating a golf course through a contractual relationship with the local agency, including a license, lease, or management agreement.
   4. “Local agency” means a county, city and county, city, or charter city. “Local agency” includes a special district and joint powers authority.
   5. “Third-party golf reservation service platform” means a website, mobile application, or other internet platform that is owned or operated by an entity other than a golf course operator and that offers or arranges reservations for on-premises service for a customer at a golf course.
5. Makes the following Legislative findings and declarations.
   1. The State of California is home to many golf courses that attract tourists from around the world. They also provide recreational, social, health, and charitable benefits to the residents of the communities in which they are located.
   2. There are over 200 courses in California that are municipally owned by a mix of state, city, county, city and county, and charter cities. Because these public courses are parts of publicly owned park systems, they operate per-pricing structures that make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, schools, school athletic teams, and local clubs and civic organizations. This pricing creates a demand for tee times that, in California’s urban areas, are among the highest if not the highest in the nation.
   3. Tee time brokers have become a significant issue throughout the state. By booking tee times en masse and selling, reselling, and brokering them at inflated prices on a secondary market, they substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents and harm the ability of the state’s municipal golf course owners to operate them per a maximally affordable business model providing maximal equitable public access.
   4. This Act addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

Comments

The author and sponsor note that California has over 200 publicly owned and operated golf courses and when tee times are bought up by third-party websites and sold for more than the original price it creates an unfair system that disadvantages the public. Public golf course fees are much lower than those at privately owned courses, which helps to ensure that they are available and affordable to local residents. Tee time brokers use automated bots to buy desirable tee times at public golf courses and then resell them for a profit on their websites.^[1] This same issue has been seen with concert tickets^[2] and restaurant reservations.^[3] This bill seeks to address this issue by prohibiting a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.

A coalition of supporters note that:

When the ubiquity of 3rd party brokering became a front page story in Los Angeles and other California urban areas in 2024, municipalities adopted various forms of reservation protocols that mitigated the problem but in the end were not capable of solving it – protocols that involved additional expense to their patrons.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office indicted two men for failing to report $1.1 million in income, including money from operating a tee time broker website in 2025.^[4] A Press Release from the California Attorney General’s Office regarding the indictment states:

As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. […] In total, between 2021 and 2023, the Kim brothers earned nearly $700,000 from their tee time brokering business.^[5]

This bill provides that any violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL. The UCL protects consumers against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and advertising. The UCL provides remedies for “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 [citations omitted].) The UCL provides for civil penalties to be assessed and recovered from violators in the name of the people of California by various governmental agencies and specifically details how the proceeds from those actions are to be distributed and used.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/4/26)

California Alliance for Golf (source)

California Association of Recreation & Park Districts

California Golf Course Owners Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

City of Los Angeles

City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks

City of San Clemente

City of San Diego

City of Thousand Oaks

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America

Latina Golfers Association

League of California Cities

Northern California PGA

San Francisco Public Golf Alliance

Southern California Golf Association

Southern California PGA

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/4/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of the bill, write in support stating:

There are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate per business models that eschew maximal revenue generation in favor of making them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. Because California’s urban areas are among the most golf-starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee times second to none. It has also created opportunities for 3rd party tee time brokers to capture and broker tee times at inflated prices and in the process substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents. […]

AB 1954 maintains those features of 3rd party arrangements that benefit the consumers of public golf course offerings and the public agencies that provide them, while allowing those public agencies the continued ability to manage those offerings for the benefit of the communities that are in the final analysis the owners of those offerings by balancing the needs of cost recovery and long-term capital reinvestment with the public interest served by offering specialized access to local residents, juniors, seniors, students, school athletes, local clubs, civic organizations, and local charities, and in the cases of some of the state’s largest urban parkland golf systems, revenues over and above cost recovery that is then dedicated to non-golf park/recreation programs that would otherwise require public funding.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/21/26

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Carrillo, Chen, Flora, Garcia, Hoover, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Wilson

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/5/26 15:04:14

**** END ****

1. Matt Hamilton, L.A. Times, (Mar. 9, 2025), L.A. touts success at blocking tee time brokers from city golf courses, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-19/success-blocking-tee-time-brokers-from-city-golf-courses. ↑

2. See AB 1720 (Haney, 2026). ↑

3. See AB 1640 (Stefani, 2026). ↑

4. Cal. A.G., Press Release, (Sept. 12, 2025), Identical Twins Who Moonlighted as Golf Tee-Time Brokers Charged with Failing to Report More Than $1.1 Million in Income to IRS, available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/identical-twins-who-moonlighted-golf-tee-time-brokers-charged-failing-report-more-11. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: AB 1954

Author: Ward (D)

Amended: 8/4/26 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: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/21/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Municipal golf courses: reservations

SOURCE: California Alliance for Golf

DIGEST:

This bill enacts the Protecting Access to Reservations Act, which prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.

Floor Amendments of 8/4/26 address concerns from the Department of Justice.

ANALYSIS: Existing law:

1. Establishes the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and defines “unfair competition” to mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
2. Provides that any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of Business and Professions Code Section 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but these limitations do not apply to claims brought under this chapter by the Attorney General, or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203.)
3. Holds any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, by any district attorney, by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, by any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a county counsel of any county within which a city has a population in excess of 750,000, by any city attorney of any city and county, or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor, in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206(a).)
4. Requires that the penalties collected pursuant to the UCL to be used for enforcement of consumer protection laws and provides for the distribution of those funds based on the entity bringing the action, as specified. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206(c).)
5. 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).)

This bill:

1. Enacts the Protecting Access to Reservations Act (Act).
2. Prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.
   1. If a golf course operator does not post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.
   2. The authority provided in a written agreement does not extend to an affiliate website or other internet platform unless the written agreement explicitly provides that authority to that affiliate website or internet platform.
3. Provides that any violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL.
4. Defines the following terms for purposes of the Act.
   1. “Affiliate” means any entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, another entity.
   2. “Golf course” means a golf course and its accessory facilities and services that are owned by a local agency. “Golf course” includes clubhouses, driving ranges, golf cart storage, locker and shower facilities, and sales facilities.
   3. “Golf course operator” means either of the following:
      1. a local agency operating a golf course; or
      2. an entity operating a golf course through a contractual relationship with the local agency, including a license, lease, or management agreement.
   4. “Local agency” means a county, city and county, city, or charter city. “Local agency” includes a special district and joint powers authority.
   5. “Third-party golf reservation service platform” means a website, mobile application, or other internet platform that is owned or operated by an entity other than a golf course operator and that offers or arranges reservations for on-premises service for a customer at a golf course.
5. Makes the following Legislative findings and declarations.
   1. The State of California is home to many golf courses that attract tourists from around the world. They also provide recreational, social, health, and charitable benefits to the residents of the communities in which they are located.
   2. There are over 200 courses in California that are municipally owned by a mix of state, city, county, city and county, and charter cities. Because these public courses are parts of publicly owned park systems, they operate per-pricing structures that make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, schools, school athletic teams, and local clubs and civic organizations. This pricing creates a demand for tee times that, in California’s urban areas, are among the highest if not the highest in the nation.
   3. Tee time brokers have become a significant issue throughout the state. By booking tee times en masse and selling, reselling, and brokering them at inflated prices on a secondary market, they substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents and harm the ability of the state’s municipal golf course owners to operate them per a maximally affordable business model providing maximal equitable public access.
   4. This Act addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

Comments

The author and sponsor note that California has over 200 publicly owned and operated golf courses and when tee times are bought up by third-party websites and sold for more than the original price it creates an unfair system that disadvantages the public. Public golf course fees are much lower than those at privately owned courses, which helps to ensure that they are available and affordable to local residents. Tee time brokers use automated bots to buy desirable tee times at public golf courses and then resell them for a profit on their websites.^[1] This same issue has been seen with concert tickets^[2] and restaurant reservations.^[3] This bill seeks to address this issue by prohibiting a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.

A coalition of supporters note that:

When the ubiquity of 3rd party brokering became a front page story in Los Angeles and other California urban areas in 2024, municipalities adopted various forms of reservation protocols that mitigated the problem but in the end were not capable of solving it – protocols that involved additional expense to their patrons.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office indicted two men for failing to report $1.1 million in income, including money from operating a tee time broker website in 2025.^[4] A Press Release from the California Attorney General’s Office regarding the indictment states:

As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. […] In total, between 2021 and 2023, the Kim brothers earned nearly $700,000 from their tee time brokering business.^[5]

This bill provides that any violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL. The UCL protects consumers against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and advertising. The UCL provides remedies for “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 [citations omitted].) The UCL provides for civil penalties to be assessed and recovered from violators in the name of the people of California by various governmental agencies and specifically details how the proceeds from those actions are to be distributed and used.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/4/26)

California Alliance for Golf (source)

California Association of Recreation & Park Districts

California Golf Course Owners Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

City of Los Angeles

City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks

City of San Clemente

City of San Diego

City of Thousand Oaks

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America

Latina Golfers Association

League of California Cities

Northern California PGA

San Francisco Public Golf Alliance

Southern California Golf Association

Southern California PGA

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/4/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of the bill, write in support stating:

There are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate per business models that eschew maximal revenue generation in favor of making them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. Because California’s urban areas are among the most golf-starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee times second to none. It has also created opportunities for 3rd party tee time brokers to capture and broker tee times at inflated prices and in the process substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents. […]

AB 1954 maintains those features of 3rd party arrangements that benefit the consumers of public golf course offerings and the public agencies that provide them, while allowing those public agencies the continued ability to manage those offerings for the benefit of the communities that are in the final analysis the owners of those offerings by balancing the needs of cost recovery and long-term capital reinvestment with the public interest served by offering specialized access to local residents, juniors, seniors, students, school athletes, local clubs, civic organizations, and local charities, and in the cases of some of the state’s largest urban parkland golf systems, revenues over and above cost recovery that is then dedicated to non-golf park/recreation programs that would otherwise require public funding.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/21/26

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Carrillo, Chen, Flora, Garcia, Hoover, Lackey, Ramos, Celeste Rodriguez, Wilson

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/5/26 16:20:48

**** END ****

1. Matt Hamilton, L.A. Times, (Mar. 9, 2025), L.A. touts success at blocking tee time brokers from city golf courses, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-19/success-blocking-tee-time-brokers-from-city-golf-courses. ↑

2. See AB 1720 (Haney, 2026). ↑

3. See AB 1640 (Stefani, 2026). ↑

4. Cal. A.G., Press Release, (Sept. 12, 2025), Identical Twins Who Moonlighted as Golf Tee-Time Brokers Charged with Failing to Report More Than $1.1 Million in Income to IRS, available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/identical-twins-who-moonlighted-golf-tee-time-brokers-charged-failing-report-more-11. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 29, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY:

Prohibits unauthorized third-party platforms from listing, selling, or reselling tee times at publicly owned golf courses unless they have the golf course operator’s written permission, while still allowing golfers to transfer a reservation at cost when refunds are unavailable.

NOTE: This bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary on June 16, 2026, and passed on a 11-0 vote.

Existing law:

1. Establishes California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and any unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorneys, county counsel, city attorneys, and certain private parties to seek injunctive relief, restitution, and other remedies. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §§ 17200 et seq.)
2. Provides that violations of other laws may constitute unlawful business practices under the UCL and authorizes civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation in actions brought by specified public prosecutors. (BPC §§ 17203, 17206)
3. Enacts California’s False Advertising Law, which prohibits any person or business from making or disseminating any statement concerning property, goods, or services that is untrue or misleading and known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading. (BPC §§ 17500 et seq.)
4. Prohibits deceptive use of trademarks and service marks by making it unlawful to use another person's registered mark, or a confusingly similar imitation, in connection with advertising or offering goods or services in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. (BPC § 14245)
5. Authorizes local agencies to own and operate municipal golf courses as public recreational facilities and to enter into leases, licenses, or management agreements for their operation. (Government Code §§ 37350.5, 37351)
6. Authorizes local agencies to contract with private entities to operate municipal facilities, including golf courses, while retaining public ownership of those facilities. (General contracting authority under GC §§ 37350 et seq. and local agency contracting authority.)

This bill:

1. Establishes the Protecting Access to Reservations Act which prohibits a website, mobile application, or other internet platform that is owned or operated by an entity other than a golf course operator and that offers or arranges reservations for on-premises service for a customer at a golf course from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator. Specifies that this written agreement does not extend to an affiliate website or other internet platform unless the written agreement explicitly provides that authority to that affiliate website or internet platform.
2. Provides that if a golf course operator does not clearly post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.
3. Specifies that a violation of these provisions constitutes an unlawful business act or practice.
4. States findings and declarations that:
5. the State of California is home to many golf courses that attract tourists from around the world. They also provide recreational, social, health, and charitable benefits to the residents of the communities in which they are located.
6. There are over 200 courses in California that are municipally owned by a mix of state, city, county, city and county, and charter cities. Because these public courses are parts of publicly owned park systems, they operate per-pricing structures that make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, schools, school athletic teams, and local clubs and civic organizations. This pricing creates a demand for tee times that, in California’s urban areas, are among the highest if not the highest in the nation.
7. Tee time brokers have become a significant issue throughout the state. By booking tee times en masse and selling, reselling, and brokering them at inflated prices on a secondary market, they substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents and harm the ability of the state’s municipal golf course owners to operate them per a maximally affordable business model providing maximal equitable public access.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill is keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel. According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the bill will result in costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice to bring enforcement actions as authorized by this bill and ongoing cost pressures of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts in additional workload resulting from adding an activity to UCL. 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.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California Alliance for Golf. According to the Author, “Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.”

The Author advises that there are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate at below market value to make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. This pricing creates a demand for tee times in California urban areas that are among the highest in the nation.

This bill is addressing an issue being experienced by municipal golf course in the state, where individuals are booking reservations for tee times and then selling them on a secondary market. Some are setting up websites that look like they are affiliated with the golf course, where the URL or name is similar, but they do not have any agreement in place with the golf course.

According to the Author, “Golf is a popular sport that should be an option available to people of every income level. The goal of many municipal courses is to keep the prices low for residents whose taxes fund the upkeep and maintenance of these facilities. It is wrong for individuals to purchase or reserve tee times with the express intention of inflating prices for personal gain, while never intending to use the reservations themselves. It is also wrong to setup misleading websites meant to trick golfers into booking through them rather than a legitimate method provided by the actual golf course.

Marginalized or underserved communities, especially in areas of southern California where the demand for golf tee time reservations are very high in comparison to the supply, should not be forced into a position where the only way to play the sport is to pay brokers far more than the original price being offered by the courses.”

1. Background. California has long prohibited unfair business practices and misleading advertising through the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. The UCL is intentionally broad and serves as the state's principal civil enforcement mechanism against unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Likewise, the False Advertising Law prohibits businesses from making misleading representations about goods or services offered to consumers.

As online reservation platforms have expanded, questions have arisen about secondary resale of reservations for public and consumer-facing services. Similar concerns have arisen in connection with ticket sales, restaurant reservations, campground reservations, and municipal golf tee times, raising questions about consumer access to limited public resources and the use of automated technologies to obtain reservations for resale. Municipal golf courses are intended to provide affordable public recreational opportunities through reservation systems that allow golfers to book tee times directly with the course. According to the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, however, unauthorized “tee time brokering” has become an increasing challenge at Los Angeles municipal golf courses. The Department explains that brokers reserve publicly available tee times as soon as they are released and advertise those reservations for resale, later canceling and rebooking the reservation in the purchaser's name.

Public reporting has documented the practical effects of these practices on consumers. According to the Los Angeles Times, golfers reported that desirable weekend tee times at popular municipal courses often disappeared within seconds of becoming available, with some subsequently being offered for resale online for additional fees. In response, the City of Los Angeles implemented a pilot reservation deposit program intended to discourage speculative reservations. The City later reported that reservations that were booked and subsequently canceled declined by nearly 95 percent during the program’s first six months, and golfers reported improved access to tee times.

A 2025 article in Golfweek highlighted that “Between 2021 and 2023, the Kim brothers operated a golf tee time brokering business in which they reserved golf tee times online, including at public golf courses, and resold them to members of the public for a fee, frequently in violation of municipal regulations. The brothers marketed, solicited, and communicated with their customers through various social medial platforms, including KakaoTalk, an instant messaging application. As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

AB 1954 would establish that the unauthorized resale or brokering of reservations at municipally owned golf courses constitutes an unlawful business practice enforceable under California's existing consumer protection laws. As a result, businesses that facilitate or profit from unauthorized reservation brokering could be subject to the remedies available under the UCL, including injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties in actions brought by authorized public prosecutors. The bill does not prohibit municipally owned golf courses from contracting with authorized reservation vendors or technology providers. Rather, it seeks to prohibit the unauthorized commercial resale of tee times made available through public reservation systems.

1. Arguments in Support. According to supporters, “Unauthorized third-party reservation services charge higher rates and make it difficult for residents to book tee-times at municipal courses where fees are kept affordable to ensure access to residents. Many of these third-party brokers are using sophisticated websites and paying for search engine optimization, which confuses consumers who do not intend to use these platforms. AB 1954 is a commonsense approach that will provide local jurisdictions with the option to pursue legal action against these platforms operating without an agreement. Currently, municipalities have minimal legal standing to stop unauthorized third-party reservation services and cease and desist orders are commonly ignored.”

Supporters write that “When the ubiquity of 3rd party brokering became a front page story in Los Angeles and other California urban areas in 2024, municipalities adopted various forms of reservation protocols that mitigated the problem but in the end were not capable of solving it – protocols that involved additional expense to their patrons… AB 1954 would give the state’s cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy that they would have to initiate of their own volition and at their own expense to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent (written agreement) of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide…It only affects brokering without the consent of the public agency that owns the golf course or the management group that the public agency has put under contract to operate its golf course. There are many well-known and popular vendors in that space. They operate by written agreements that bring benefit to both municipality and vendor, not to mention golfers, and would not be affected by AB 1954.”

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

California Alliance for Golf
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Golf Course Owners Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Association of Counties

City of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles, Recreation and Parks
City of San Clemente
City of Thousand Oaks
County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Latina Golfers Association
League of California Cities
Northern California PGA
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
Southern California Golf Association
Southern California PGA

Opposition:

None received

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1954 (Author:Ward)

Version: June 4, 2026

Hearing Date: June 16, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Municipal golf courses: reservations

DIGEST

This bill enacts the Protecting Access to Reservations Act, which prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bill is intended to address the issue of golf tee time brokers selling tee times at municipal golf courses. The author and sponsor note that California has over 200 publicly owned and operated golf courses and when tee times are bought up by third-party websites and sold for more than the original price it creates an unfair system that disadvantages the public. This bill seeks to address this issue by banning this practice unless a third-party website has a written agreement with a municipal golf course to sell reservations on the third-party website.

The bill is sponsored by the California Alliance for Golf. The bill is supported by golf advocates and local government representatives, including the League of California Cities and California Special Districts Association. No timely opposition was received by the Committee. Should the bill pass this Committee it will be referred to the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the UCL and defines “unfair competition” to mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
2. Provides that any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of Business and Professions Code Section 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but these limitations do not apply to claims brought under this chapter by the Attorney General, or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203.)
3. Holds any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, by any district attorney, by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, by any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a county counsel of any county within which a city has a population in excess of 750,000, by any city attorney of any city and county, or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor, in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206(a).)
4. Requires that the penalties collected pursuant to the UCL to be used for enforcement of consumer protection laws and provides for the distribution of those funds based on the entity bringing the action, as specified. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17206(c).)
5. 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).)

This bill:

1. Enacts the Protecting Access to Reservations Act (Act).
2. Prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.
   1. If a golf course operator does not post their cancellation policy on the internet website where the reservation is secured, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.
   2. The authority provided in a written agreement does not extend to an affiliate website or other internet platform unless the written agreement explicitly provides that authority to that affiliate website or internet platform.
3. Provides that any violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL.
4. Defines the following terms for purposes of the Act.
   1. “Affiliate” means any entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, another entity.
   2. “Golf course” means a golf course and its accessory facilities and services that are owned by a local agency. “Golf course” includes clubhouses, driving ranges, golf cart storage, locker and shower facilities, and sales facilities.
   3. “Golf course operator” means either of the following:
      1. a local agency operating a golf course; or
      2. an entity operating a golf course through a contractual relationship with the local agency, including a license, lease, or management agreement.
   4. “Local agency” means a county, city and county, city, or charter city. “Local agency” includes a special district and joint powers authority.
   5. “Third-party golf reservation service platform” means a website, mobile application, or other internet platform that is owned or operated by an entity other than a golf course operator and that offers or arranges reservations for on-premises service for a customer at a golf course.
5. Makes the following Legislative findings and declarations.
   1. The State of California is home to many golf courses that attract tourists from around the world. They also provide recreational, social, health, and charitable benefits to the residents of the communities in which they are located.
   2. There are over 200 courses in California that are municipally owned by a mix of state, city, county, city and county, and charter cities. Because these public courses are parts of publicly owned park systems, they operate per-pricing structures that make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, schools, school athletic teams, and local clubs and civic organizations. This pricing creates a demand for tee times that, in California’s urban areas, are among the highest if not the highest in the nation.
   3. Tee time brokers have become a significant issue throughout the state. By booking tee times en masse and selling, reselling, and brokering them at inflated prices on a secondary market, they substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents and harm the ability of the state’s municipal golf course owners to operate them per a maximally affordable business model providing maximal equitable public access.
   4. This Act addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.

1. This bill seeks to ensure access to tee times at public golf courses

The author and sponsor note that California has over 200 publicly owned and operated golf courses and when tee times are bought up by third-party websites and sold for more than the original price it creates an unfair system that disadvantages the public. Public golf course fees are much lower than those at privately owned courses, which helps to ensure that they are available and affordable to local residents. Tee time brokers use automated bots to buy desirable tee times at public golf courses and then resell them for a profit on their websites.^[1] This same issue has been seen with concert tickets^[2] and restaurant reservations.^[3] This bill seeks to address this issue by prohibiting a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course owned by a local agency on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator, except as specified.

A coalition of supporters note that:

When the ubiquity of 3rd party brokering became a front page story in Los Angeles and other California urban areas in 2024, municipalities adopted various forms of reservation protocols that mitigated the problem but in the end were not capable of solving it – protocols that involved additional expense to their patrons.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office indicted two men for failing to report $1.1 million in income, including money from operating a tee time broker website in 2025.^[4] A Press Release from the California Attorney General’s Office regarding the indictment states:

As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. […] In total, between 2021 and 2023, the Kim brothers earned nearly $700,000 from their tee time brokering business.^[5]

The bill provides that any violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL. The UCL protects consumers against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and advertising. The UCL provides remedies for “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 [citations omitted].) The UCL provides for civil penalties to be assessed and recovered from violators in the name of the people of California by various governmental agencies and specifically details how the proceeds from those actions are to be distributed and used.

1. Stakeholder statements

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of the bill, write in support stating:

There are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate per business models that eschew maximal revenue generation in favor of making them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. Because California’s urban areas are among the most golf-starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee times second to none. It has also created opportunities for 3rd party tee time brokers to capture and broker tee times at inflated prices and in the process substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents. […]

AB 1954 maintains those features of 3rd party arrangements that benefit the consumers of public golf course offerings and the public agencies that provide them, while allowing those public agencies the continued ability to manage those offerings for the benefit of the communities that are in the final analysis the owners of those offerings by balancing the needs of cost recovery and long-term capital reinvestment with the public interest served by offering specialized access to local residents, juniors, seniors, students, school athletes, local clubs, civic organizations, and local charities, and in the cases of some of the state’s largest urban parkland golf systems, revenues over and above cost recovery that is then dedicated to non-golf park/recreation programs that would otherwise require public funding.

SUPPORT

California Alliance for Golf (sponsor)

California Association of Recreation & Park Districts

California Golf Course Owners Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

City of San Clemente

City of Thousand Oaks

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America

Latina Golfers Association

League of California Cities

Northern California PGA

San Francisco Public Golf Alliance

Southern California Golf Association

Southern California PGA

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

AB 1640 (Stefani, 2026) prohibits the resale of restaurant reservations, as provided. AB 1640 is currently pending before this Committee.

AB 1720 (Haney, 2026) establishes a 10 percent cap on how much live entertainment ticket resellers may charge in the secondary ticket market, as provided. AB 1720 is currently pending in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.

Prior Legislation: None known.

PRIOR VOTES

Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

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

Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)

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

1. Matt Hamilton, L.A. Times, (Mar. 9, 2025), L.A. touts success at blocking tee time brokers from city golf courses, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-19/success-blocking-tee-time-brokers-from-city-golf-courses. ↑

2. See AB 1720 (Haney, 2026). ↑

3. See AB 1640 (Stefani, 2026). ↑

4. Cal. A.G., Press Release, (Sept. 12, 2025), Identical Twins Who Moonlighted as Golf Tee-Time Brokers Charged with Failing to Report More Than $1.1 Million in Income to IRS, available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/identical-twins-who-moonlighted-golf-tee-time-brokers-charged-failing-report-more-11. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1954

Author:(Ward)

As Amended Ver:April 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

AB 1954 prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring golf course reservations on a third-party service platform without a written agreement from the golf course operator.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring reservations for a golf course on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with the golf course operator.
2. Authorizes, if a golf course operator does not offer refunds to individuals who purchase golf course reservations, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation to sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.
3. States that the authority provided in a written agreement does not extend to an affiliate website or other internet platform unless the written agreement explicitly provides that authority to that affiliate website or internet platform.

COMMENTS

Between 2021 and 2023, twin brothers Se Youn and Hee Youn Kim operated a golf tee time brokering business in which they reserved golf tee times online, including at public golf courses, and resold them to members of the public for a fee, frequently in violation of municipal regulations. The brothers marketed, solicited, and communicated with their customers through various social medial platforms, including KakaoTalk, an instant messaging application. As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The UCL is a broad consumer protection statute that prohibits any "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent" business act or practice. Because of this three-part structure, the law is intentionally expansive. It allows courts to treat violations of other laws as "unlawful" practices, while also reaching conduct that may not be explicitly illegal but is still considered unfair or deceptive to consumers. The statute is commonly used by both private plaintiffs and public prosecutors to address issues such as false advertising, misleading business practices, and anti-competitive behavior, often serving as a flexible enforcement tool when more specific laws may not apply.

One of the defining features of the UCL is its emphasis on equitable remedies rather than punishment. Courts can order injunctive relief to stop ongoing practices and require restitution to return money or property to affected consumers, but civil penalties are generally pursued by government officials rather than private parties. Standing under the law was narrowed by Proposition 64 (2004), which requires private plaintiffs to show actual injury and economic loss. Overall, the UCL plays a central role in California's consumer protection framework by giving regulators and individuals a powerful mechanism to challenge a wide range of harmful business conduct.

According to the Author

"Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourists from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities."

Arguments in Support

According to the California Alliance for Golf (Sponsor), "There are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate per business models that eschew maximal revenue generation in favor of making them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. Because California's urban areas are among the most golf-starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee times second to none. It has also created opportunities for 3rd party tee time brokers to capture and broker tee times at inflated prices and in the process substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents…"

"AB 1954 would give the state's cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy that they would have to initiate of their own volition and at their own expense to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent (written agreement) of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.

"AB 1954 maintains those features of 3rd party arrangements that benefit the consumers of public golf course offerings and the public agencies that provide them, while allowing those public agencies the continued ability to manage those offerings for the benefit of the communities that are in the final analysis the owners of those offerings by balancing the needs of cost recovery and long-term capital reinvestment with the public interest served by offering specialized access to local residents, juniors, seniors, students, school athletes, local clubs, civic organizations, and local charities, and in the cases of some of the state's largest urban parkland golf systems, revenues over and above cost recovery that is then dedicated to non-golf park/recreation programs that would otherwise require public funding."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. Costs (Unfair Competition Law Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring enforcement actions as authorized by this bill. Actual costs will depend on the number of enforcement actions pursued by DOJ and the amount of additional work created by each action, but costs may be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
2. Ongoing cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts in additional workload resulting from adding an activity to Unfair Competition Law (UCL). 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. This backfill was $117.3 million in 2025-26.

VOTES

ASM ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, AND TOURISM: 8-0-1

YES: Ward, Lackey, Elhawary, Jeff Gonzalez, McKinnor, Ortega, Valencia, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Quirk-Silva

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

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

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: April 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Brian V. Anderson, Jr. / A.,E.,S., & T. / (916) 319-3450 FN: 0002733

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1954

Author:(Ward) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits a person or operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring golf course reservations on a third-party service platform without a written agreement from the golf course operator.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (Unfair Competition Law Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring enforcement actions as authorized by this bill.  Actual costs will depend on the number of enforcement actions pursued by DOJ and the amount of additional work created by each action, but costs may be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. 
2. Ongoing cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts in additional workload resulting from adding an activity to Unfair Competition Law (UCL). 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. This backfill was $117.3 million in 2025-26.

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

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.

1. Background. With over 220 golf courses statewide, California has some of the highest demand for tee times, particularly in urban areas of the state, in the country. Due to this high demand, there have been instances of individuals setting up tee time brokering businesses by reserving tee times in bulk online at popular golf courses, both public and private, and reselling them for a profit, often in violation of municipal regulations. While brokering tee times is not inherently disadvantageous for a consumer or golf course operator, proponents of this bill argue it is disadvantageous when it occurs without the consent of the golf course operator. Speaking to this point in support of the bill, the California Alliance for Golf states the following:

To be clear; it’s important to emphasize that this bill does not in any way affect agreements that are freely entered into for ostensible mutual benefit. It only affects brokering without the consent of the public agency that owns the golf course or the management group that the public agency has put under contract to operate its golf course. There are many well-known and popular vendors in that space. They operate by written agreements that bring benefit to both municipality and vendor, not to mention golfers, and would not be affected by AB 1954.

This bill establishes the listing, advertising, promoting, selling, or transferring of golf course reservations on a third-party reservation service platform without the golf course operator’s written consent as an unlawful business practice.

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Heredia / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 16, 2026

Fiscal:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1954 (

Author:Ward) – As Amended Ver:March 17, 2026

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SUBJECT: Municipal golf courses: reservations

SYNOPSIS

California hosts over 200 publicly owned and operated golf courses. With limited courses and millions of golfers, accessing tee times at the more popular courses can be exceedingly difficult. Compounding this difficulty are tee time brokers, unauthorized people often using technology to automate the process of scooping up tee time reservations en masse and reselling them at a higher value. These resellers can price out lower income and beginner golfers and impact a courses’ bottom line with last-minute cancellations and unfilled reservations.

Specifically, this bill aims to address tee time resellers by prohibiting third-party golf course reservation platforms from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling golf course reservations without written agreement from the golf course operator. Violations of this law would be enforced under the state’s Unfair Competition Law.

This is one of three Assembly bills being heard by this Committee related to protecting consumers from predatory resale practices. A.B. 1640 (Stefani) focuses on prohibiting the resale of restaurant reservations.^[1] A.B. 1720 (Haney) establishes a ten percent cap on how much live entertainment ticket resellers can charge in the secondary ticket market. ^[2] All three bills seek to discourage resellers who are competing with actual customers by using technology to quickly gather up large numbers of reservations at golf courses and restaurants, or by buying tickets to live entertainment with the intention of reselling them back to the customers at an inflated price.

Amendments addressed in Comment #5 expand the language to prohibit individuals from acting as tee time brokers, along with the platforms. However, the bill also protects a person’s ability to transfer or sell their reservation for the price they paid for it in the event that they are not able to use the reservation and the golf course does not offer refunds for reservation cancellations.

This bill is sponsored by the California Alliance for Golf. It is supported by a range of golf advocates and local government representatives, including the League of California Cities and California Special Districts Association. This bill has no registered opposition.

This bill was previously heard by the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee, where it passed 8-0.

EXISTING LAW:

1. 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).)
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. Prohibits a person from selling, or offering to sell, an appointment with the Department of Motor Vehicle. (Veh. Code § 1680(a).)

THIS BILL:

1. Makes findings and declarations regarding the detrimental impacts of tee time brokers on municipally owned golf courses and the residents that frequent them.
2. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Affiliate” as any entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under control with, another entity.
   2. “Golf course” as a golf course and its accessory facilities and services that are owned by a local agency, including club houses, driving ranges, golf cart storage, locker and shower facilities, and sales facilities.
   3. “Golf course operator” as either:
      1. A local agency operating a golf course.
      2. An entity operating a golf course through a contractual relationship with the local agency, including a license, lease, or management agreement.
   4. “Local agency” as a county, city and county, city, or charter city, including special district and joint powers authority.
   5. “Third party golf reservation service platform” as a website, mobile application, or other internet website that is owned and operated by an entity other than a golf course operator and that offers or arranges reservations for on-premises service for a customer at a golf course.
3. Prohibits third-party golf reservation platforms from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling reservations for a golf course on the platform without a written agreement from the golf course operator.
4. Restricts the authority granted by written agreement to explicitly named third-party golf reservation platforms, not affiliate websites or internet platforms.
5. Grants enforcement authority under the Unfair Competition Law.

COMMENTS:

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

Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.

2) Background. California currently hosts over 220 golf courses that are municipally owned by local government entities such as cities, counties, or towns. These courses are designed to be accessible to the public as they offer no-fee or lower rates than private courses that can cost golfers thousands of dollars a month in membership fees. California hosts some 2.8 million golfers, by far the highest number of golfers in the country by state, meaning that competition for available green is high and access is limited.^[3] However, the accessibility of municipal golf courses has recently been challenged by tee time brokers, unauthorized middlemen who scoop up free tee time reservations and sell them back to the public for a price.

Tee time brokers have become a rising and troubling trend in golfing for several years, as golfers have often complained about the difficulties in securing a tee off timeslot. In 2025, a federal grand jury charged two brothers, Youn “Steve” Kim and Hee Youn “Ted” Kim, with tax-evasion for income collected in part from selling tee times for local golf courses.^[4] Tee times are typically posted on the golf courses’ websites at 6 a.m. for the week ahead, and the brothers would purchase all of the tee times within seconds of posting. Using a Korean instant messaging app known as KakaoTalk, the brothers would connect with customers and sell the tee times for a fee — $30 for non-peak hours and $40 for peak hours. The brothers were able to reserve thousands of tee times for golf courses across the nation, including at least 17 different golf courses in Southern California, making it difficult for golfers to obtain a tee-time unless they were will to pay the fees charged by these brokers.^[5] Notably, reselling tee times on KakaoTalk is a fairly widespread practice, with several individuals admitting to doing it for church members or friends.^[6] The Kim brothers were indicted due to tax evasion for money collected from their reselling practices, as current law does not prohibit tee time brokering. This resale practice resulted in lost revenue for local governments with last-minute reservation cancellations and refunds if the tee-times were not purchased and cost local residents opportunities to enjoy recreational golf games.

3) California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). California’s UCL is a broad consumer protection statute that prohibits a range of business misconduct including “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” activities. The expansive language of the law allows courts to address business misconduct that is not explicitly illegal but is still considered deceptive or unfair to consumers, allowing for flexible enforcement in the absence of more specific statutes. UCL is used by both private plaintiffs and public prosecutors to file lawsuits covering a range of misleading business practices, such as false advertising and trademark infringement. In 2004, following concerns of frivolous lawsuits, California voters approved Proposition 64, which narrowed the category of individuals who could sue businesses under the UCL to persons who could prove injury and financial loss due to unfair competition.^[7]

4) The new scalpers. This is one of three Assembly bills being heard by this Committee intending to protect consumers from predatory resale practices. This bill prohibits the resale of tee time reservations at municipal golf courses, unless a reseller has a contractual agreement with the course to resell the reservations. AB 1640 (Stefani) focuses on prohibiting the resale of restaurant reservations. AB 1720 (Haney) establishes a ten percent cap on how much live entertainment ticket resellers can charge in the secondary ticket market. All three bills seek to discourage resellers who are competing with actual customers by using technology to gather up large numbers of reservations at golf courses and restaurants, or by buying tickets to live entertainment with the intention of reselling them back to the customers at an inflated price.

This practice of purchasing a good or service en masse before the average consumer can purchase it with the express intent of reselling it to the consumer at an inflated price (long referred to as scalping in the entertainment industry), appears to be spreading from live entertainment tickets to other types of experiences and activities. Resellers are now selling reservations for restaurants, tee times, and even popular camping grounds back to consumers at a markup. While it is important that consumers either be able to obtain a refund, or transfer or sell a reservation or ticket that they are unable to use, this is not what is happening in these cases. Rather, brokers are intentionally amassing large numbers of reservations and tickets with the express purpose of reselling them for a profit. At some point, rather than addressing the problem one industry at a time, the Legislature may wish to consider making scalping, broadly defined, illegal across all live entertainment and recreational industries, from tickets to amusement parks and popular movies to reservations for picnic areas and pickleball courts.

5) Amendments. The author has agreed to the following amendments. The first amendment adds individual resellers who may be reselling tee times on other platforms, as current language only addressed third-party golf reservation platforms. The second amendment addresses an important consumer protection for this Committee: allowing someone who cannot use a ticket or reservation they have purchased to either obtain a refund, try to resell it to recoup the price they paid, or transfer it to someone else.

Amendment 1: 22949.93.2. (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person, or an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform shall not list, advertise, promote, sell, or transfer reservations for a golf course on a third-party reservation service platform without a written agreement with between the operator of the third party golf reservation service and the golf course operator. that authorizes that reservation platform.

Amendment 2: (2) If the golf course operator does not offer refunds to individuals who purchase golf course reservations, an individual who paid for a golf course reservation may list, sell or transfer the golf course reservation for no more than the total amount that the individual paid to acquire the reservation.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: California Alliance for Golf, sponsors of the bill, write in support:

AB 1954 would give the state’s cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy that they would have to initiate of their own volition and at their own expense to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent (written agreement) of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.

[…]

We believe that AB 1954 provides the simple tool necessary for the public agencies that own roughly ¼ of California’s golf stock to balance these equities at their own volition to preserve equitable access to the 220 plus golf courses that make up that ¼.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Alliance for Golf (Sponsor)
California Golf Course Owners Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Los Angeles, Recreation and Parks
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Latina Golfers Association
League of California Cities
Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego
Northern California PGA
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
Southern California Golf Association
Southern California PGA

Opposition

None on file.

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

1. AB 1640 (Stefani). ↑

2. AB 1720 (Haney). ↑

3. SCGA, “Is There a Golf Course Shortage?” Southern California Golf Association, (Oct. 3, 2024), https://socalroundup.scga.org/is-there-a-golf-course-shortage. ↑

4. Matt Hamilton, “Twin brothers charged with running tee time brokering scheme, hiding $1.1 million in income,” Los Angeles Times, (Sept. 12, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-12/twin-brothers-charged-with-running-tee-time-brokering-scheme-hiding-1-1-million-in-income. ↑

5. Id. ↑

6. Matt Hamilton & A. Ahn, “Brokers are buying up precious tee times at L.A. city golf courses. Golfers are desperate and outraged,” Los Angeles Times, (Mar. 16, 2024), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-16/l-a-golfers-in-uproar-over-scarce-tee-times-at-city-courses-scalpers-selling-reservations. ↑

7. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. ↑

Date of Hearing: April 7, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, AND TOURISM

Christopher M. Ward, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1954 (

Author:Ward) – As Amended Ver:March 17, 2026

SUBJECT: Municipal golf courses: reservations

SUMMARY: AB 1954, the Protecting Access to Reservations (PAR) Act, prohibits an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits an operator of a third-party golf reservation service platform from listing, advertising, promoting, or selling reservations for a golf course owned by a local public agency without a written authorization from the golf course operator. This written authorization does not extend to an affiliate website or other internet platform unless the written agreement explicitly provides that authority to that affiliate website or internet platform.
2. Defines a “Golf course” as a golf course as well as its accessory facilities and services that are owned by a local agency, including clubhouses, driving ranges, golf cart storage, locker and shower facilities, and sales facilities.
3. Defines a “Golf course operator” as either a local agency operating a golf course, or an entity operating a golf course through a contractual relationship with the local agency, including a license, lease, or management agreement
4. Defines a “Third-party golf reservation service platform” as a website, mobile application, or other internet platform that is owned or operated by an entity other than a golf course operator and that offers or arranges reservations for on-premises service for a customer at a golf course.

EXISTING LAW:

1. 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. (Business and Profession Code (BPC) 17200)
2. 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. (BPC 14245 (a) (1))
3. 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).)
4. Prohibits a person from selling, or offering to sell, an appointment with the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Vehicle Code (VEH) 1680 (a))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This measure has been keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “Golf is an incredibly popular sport in California, and its courses attract tourist from all around the world. This legislation is necessary to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of reservations systems for personal gain, as well as taking opportunities from local residents whose taxpayer dollars go towards the upkeep and maintenance of those public and municipal facilities.”
2. Background. There are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate at below market value to make them maximally available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. This pricing creates a demand for tee times in California urban areas that are among the highest in the nation.

Between 2021 and 2023, twin brothers Se Youn and Hee Youn Kim operated a golf tee time brokering business in which they reserved golf tee times online, including at public golf courses, and resold them to members of the public for a fee, frequently in violation of municipal regulations. The brothers marketed, solicited, and communicated with their customers through various social medial platforms, including KakaoTalk, an instant messaging application. As part of their business, the brothers reserved thousands of tee times for resale at numerous golf courses nationwide, including at least 17 different public courses across Southern California. The brothers created a monopoly of Los Angeles and Orange County area golf course tee times by securing the most sought-after early morning slots, often within seconds of their release to the public. As a result, the brothers made it more difficult and more expensive for members of the public to reserve tee times at these courses without paying them an additional booking fee, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[1]

1. California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The UCL is a broad consumer protection statute that prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” business act or practice. Because of this three-part structure, the law is intentionally expansive. It allows courts to treat violations of other laws as “unlawful” practices, while also reaching conduct that may not be explicitly illegal but is still considered unfair or deceptive to consumers. The statute is commonly used by both private plaintiffs and public prosecutors to address issues such as false advertising, misleading business practices, and anti-competitive behavior, often serving as a flexible enforcement tool when more specific laws may not apply.

One of the defining features of the UCL is its emphasis on equitable remedies rather than punishment. Courts can order injunctive relief to stop ongoing practices and require restitution to return money or property to affected consumers, but civil penalties are generally pursued by government officials rather than private parties. Standing under the law was narrowed by Proposition 64 (2004), which requires private plaintiffs to show actual injury and economic loss. Overall, the UCL plays a central role in California’s consumer protection framework by giving regulators and individuals a powerful mechanism to challenge a wide range of harmful business conduct.

1. Arguments in support. According to a coalition of golf associations, including the sponsor of the bill, the Californian Alliance for Golf, in support, “AB 1954 would give the state’s cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy that they would have to initiate of their own volition and at their own expense to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent (written agreement) of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.

“To be clear; it’s important to emphasize that this bill does not in any way affect agreements that are freely entered into for ostensible mutual benefit. It only affects brokering without the consent of the public agency that owns the golf course or the management group that the public agency has put under contract to operate its golf course. There are many well-known and popular vendors in that space. They operate by written agreements that bring benefit to both municipality and vendor, not to mention golfers, and would not be affected by AB 1954.”

1. Double-referral. Should the bill pass from this committee, it will be re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.
2. Policy considerations. This bill is addressing an issue that has been experienced by municipal golf courses in the state, where individuals have booked reservations for tee times and then sold them on the secondary market or third party website unaffiliated with the municipal course. These websites may look like they are affiliated with the golf course, where the URL or names and images are similar, but they do not have any agreement in place with the golf course.

Golf is a popular sport that should be an option available to people of every income level. The goal of many municipal courses is to keep the prices low for residents whose taxes fund the upkeep and maintenance of these facilities. It is wrong for individuals to purchase or reserve tee times with the express intention of inflating prices for personal gain, while never intending to use the reservations themselves. It is also wrong to setup misleading websites meant to trick golfers into booking through them rather than a legitimate method provided by the actual golf course.

Marginalized or underserved communities, especially in areas of southern California where the demand for golf tee time reservations are very high in comparison to the supply, should not be forced into a position where the only way to play the sport is to pay brokers far more than the original price being offered by the courses.

1. Prior and related legislation:
   1. AB 1640 (Stefani), of 2026, would prohibit a person from selling a restaurant reservation for more than the amount paid for the reservation, unless the person has the express written authorization from the restaurant. The bill is currently in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.
   2. AB 1349 (Bryan), of the current legislative session, would require an original ticket seller or a ticket reseller, before listing, marketing, or selling a ticket, to have actual or constructive possession of the ticket, or have the contractual right to sell the ticket. This bill is currently in the Senate pending referral to a policy committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Alliance for Golf

California Golf Course Owners Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

City of Los Angeles, Recreation and Parks

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America

Latina Golfers Association

League of California Cities

Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego

Northern California PGA

San Francisco Public Golf Alliance

Southern California Golf Association

Southern California PGA

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Brian V. Anderson, Jr. / A.,E.,S., & T. / (916) 319-3450

1. Todd Kelly, “Tee time brokers arrested, charged with failing to report $1 million in income to IRS”, Golfweek, September 15, 2025, https://golfweek.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2025/09/15/los-angeles-twins-tee-time-brokers-charged-failing-report-1-million-to-irs/86155507007/ ↑