Assembly Standing Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism

I want to say good morning to each and every one of you. I want to call the meeting to order of the Committee on Arts, Entertainment and Tourism. Before we start, I wanted to just go over a few housekeeping items with each and every one of you in the audience. We will be accepting in person testimony and witness and support in our opposition bills. Beginning the Bill, individuals who will actually present will be able to present.

And for those in support, we have two minutes on both sides, two minutes each in support and in opposition. After we hear from the primary witness, Members of the public will be given an opportunity to state their name, organization they represent, and their position on the Bill. That's all. So when you approach the microphone, just state your name, the organization which you represent, and whether you support or oppose the particular Bill. Additional comments will be in fact rule out of order.

Anyone acting inappropriately or disrespectfully towards a particular participants of this hearing will be asked to leave, and I'm not shy in terms of doing that. We hope it doesn't come to that. The Committee also accepts written testimonies through the position portal and you can find that on the website. Feel free to submit your letter of support or opposition through the letter porthole. With that being said, the first we're waiting for authors. As soon as we get an author, we will commence with presentations and hearings.

And if we don't, then we will act as a Subcommitee. I know the sergeants are calling for authors. We'll wait momentarily for such as. Then we'll begin. In the interest of time, we'll ask our Committee secretary to please call the row secretary. We have a quorum. We see our first presenter, Assemblymember Alanis. Please come and take a seat and proceed when ready. We have file item number one, Assembly Bill 1996 before us. Our presenters here and please begin whenever ready. Your presentation.

Colleagues, aims to improve the response to opioid overdoses by ensuring the accessibility of opioid antagonist and proper training for staff in stadiums, concert venues and in amusement parks. Fentanyl overdoses at sports stadiums, concerts venues and amusement parks are widespread, with tragic stories of fentanyl laced substances and individuals being injected against their will. Most notably was the needle spiking. This was a case at a Travis Scott concert in 2021, where eight attendees died and hundreds of others were injured.

Many of those who survived were administered Narcan, including a security officer who was unknowingly injected. Further research shows that of all the drug related overdose deaths, 61% had at least one potential opportunity for intervention and a 33.5% of those involved fentanyl. This legislation stands as a proactive approach into identifying and treating overdoses.

In addition to extending current law to make the location of opioid antagonists widely known, this Bill would require the California Department of Public Health to develop an overdose training toolkit for venue staff to be prepared to respond to an opioid overdose. Members with that, I asked for your. I vote on AB 1996. Today, let's basically make California a little bit better, a little safer. We have the tools. We have the technology. So again, request and I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You have any witnesses and support with you?

They're making kits right now.

Sounds good. At this time, we want anyone wishing to register their support for Assembly Bill 1996, please come to the microphone. Again, just your name, your organization. Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Would you please approach hearing and seeing no opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee.

It's like stereo in this room.

I love that. Well, I just want to say thank you very much to the author for bringing this legislation before us. I understand that this Bill got out of the Health Committee on consent, but I feel that this is an important issue for us to discuss. This venue covers covered in the Bill includes many of the state top destinations for tourism and entertainment. Providing resources to increase safety and prevent overdose at the locations is, in fact, a priority.

I want to say thank you very much for working with us on this Bill. And with that, it's been properly moved. And properly moved in second. Madam Secretary, would you please call the rope up? Also, this enjoys a do pass to the Assembly appropriation. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Great. We'll keep the roll over for additional Members. Thank you very much, and have a great day. Thank you. Still waiting for two more authors. We ask if you have a Bill before this Committee. Arts, entertainment, sports, sports and tourism. Please report to 444.

One of our authors have just arrived. Thank you very much for being here. Before we begin, I have a few opening comments. This is file item number three, AB 2808. And before we start, before we begin your presentation on Assembly Bill 2808. Assemblymember Wicks, I just want to thank you for engaging in the very important conversation about consumer protection in live entertainment and ticket and the ticket industry.

We have talked about your Bill and your intent, and as I stated in our conversation, I agree that there are a number of problems to address with current ticket selling practices both in the primary and secondary market. Where we disagree on this Bill is on the legislation and the mechanics used to achieve our shared policy goals and the broader definition that captured the the sports events.

As I stated when I spoke, I want to keep working with you on this Bill to strengthen it, to make it better. I think that we can find a workable solution as it moves through this process as a path forward. There are proposed amendments in the Committee analysis that address this Committee's concern by removing the language related to API system access and exempting professional and collegiate sports events from the provisions of this Bill.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to get the language on the proposed amendments in place as it will be voted on today. Assemblymember Wicks, do you commit to accepting the Committee, these amendments and take them in? The Committee on the policy and privacy protection should pass out of Committee today.

Thank you Mister chair. There we go. Okay. Thank you Mister chair, and thank you for your staff and for your engagement on the Bill and your commitment to working with me as we work on this. What I have discovered very complex issue. Should the Bill move out of Committee today?

I understand the need to clarify the scope of this Bill as we move forward on the problem of the monopoly in live ticketing market and the anticompetitive practices they employ to maintain it, to keep the Bill moving forward today and to continue to working on this policy. I accept the amendments proposed in the analysis that will remove the API system language and exempt live professional and collegiate sport events from the Bill, which I view are both very big concessions.

But I've had numerous conversations with colleagues and I want to honor those conversations and make those concessions. But I also want to clarify, Mister chair, that by removing the API access language, my hands will not be tied in the eyes of the Committee as I continue to work to negotiate a different path to increase competition in the primary ticketing market. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes, that is correct. Assemblymember Wicks, my Committee staff and I will continue to work with you on this Bill to move out of Committee today. As you work on to achieving our shared goals to addressing the challenges faced by many consumers, we're navigating the existing market to object obtain tickets for live entertainment events. I want to say thank you very much and you may proceed on presenting Assembly Bill 2808.

Thank you. And with that we will remove the API language. We'll figure out another alternative path to ensure that we're creating competition at the original point of sale, but a different mechanism. And we will remove teams live life sports from this. So. Okay, well, thank you for that. AB 2808 as is proposed to be amended as we just discussed, per my commitments to the chair and other folks on the Committee as well will prohibit live entertainment facility venues from having exclusive agreements with one ticket provider.

While the amendments will remove the language related to the API access, as the chair and I clarified the changes will not remove the prohibition on exclusivity. These amendments will give me more time to work with stakeholders and to find a different approach to creating more competition at the point of sale. The Bill also preserves the ability for consumers to transfer their tickets and attend a live entertainment event with a valid ticket, regardless of whether they purchased it in the primary or secondary market.

Competition is necessary to increase access to consumers and to improve their experience while attending live events in California, as many will remember, we used to be able to buy tickets to concerts and other live entertainment events at the box office. Remember the box office where we used to go? I remember standing waiting in line for hours on end or at other places in our community. Now we wait online and we buy tickets for most events from one website.

Because one company, Ticketmaster, controls 80% of the tickets sold in this country, 80% of the tickets are sold by one company. In 2010, Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation despite antitrust concerns and now controls, as I said, 80% of the ticketing controls the careers of hundreds of artists and nearly 80% of the live entertainment venues. One company controls all of those things. Since these companies became one live event, ticket pricing has escalated 140%, adjusted for inflation.

As the company's grip on the supply location and the price of events tightens. The company now determines who wins and who loses, not just amongst consumers, but amongst artists and venues. This is not just a problem in California, as demonstrated yesterday when the Federal Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

While it may take the Federal Government years, the reality of this monopoly is a distorted marketplace in which few real people can access the ultra exclusive primary sales market and most people are forced into into the secondary market, also largely dominated by Ticketmaster, or where professional ticketing purchasers thrive. Consumers deserve better. And AB 2808 is designed to address the heart of the problem for the consumer's ticket buying experience, the lack of competition at the point of sale.

This Bill will make ticket resellers compete against one another for our business at the outset of ticket sales, just like they do right now for hotels, airlines and other online retail. In other words, just like they do in every other industry. Members the Justice Department lawsuit is real. It will also likely take years to come to closure. We can take action now to protect consumers in California, and I know we all believe they deserve that from us.

We have the ability to do that, to demand that there's more choice. Choice ultimately is good for consumers. Competition is good for consumers. With me here to testify are Jay King, the President of the Black Chamber of Commerce and a Grammy award winning musician who has been in this business for decades, and Robert Harrell, the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, who is the sponsor of the Bill.

Good morning. Good morning. Thank you very much. You have two minutes each and proceed when ready.

My name is Jay King. I am the President and CEO of the California Black Chamber of Commerce. I'm also a musician, singer, songwriter and performer. I've been in the music industry for 40 years. I've watched the behemoth we call Live Nation grow into a four legged monster so powerful, nothing and no one would dare challenge it. Live Nation Ticketmaster controls the four corners of live concert promotions, performance venues, radio promotions and ticket sales.

By controlling these four essential components, Live Nation controls an overwhelming portion of the live entertainment business in the United States and around the world. Just imagine being a promoter, and a promoter who's in competition with you, earning money from your concerts without a penny invested in your show. That's Live Nation. Because Live Nation owns Ticketmaster, and Ticketmaster adds a 20% fee for every ticket sold.

By allowing competition into the marketplace, we give the ticket buyer the opportunity to purchase from platforms and apps they are most familiar and comfortable with using. This forces companies to be more competitive by lowering ticket fees and providing better, better service. You're probably going to hear from people today who want to keep the status quo, either because it benefits them or they fear Live Nation Ticketmaster and are toying the company line. But we can't keep doing the same thing on ticketing and expecting a different result.

And if you care about fans and believe in your product, you shouldn't be afraid of a little competition. I believe AB 2808 is the first step in creating a more competitive and financially pleasant experience for the ticket buyer, and I believe it deserves this Committee support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Two minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chairman and Members. Robert Herrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're the sponsors of the measure, and I'm here representing a broad coalition of consumers, entrepreneurs, promotists, and artists in support. I'd like to just step back for a second and talk about how we got here. Monopoly. It's a game. You can play it. It's fun.

But monopoly is the reason that we're here in this room today, and it's the reason consumers have been left holding the bag since 2010 when the merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster was approved, there was a document accompanying that known as a consent decree that is supposed to limit the behavior of the merged entities in how they conduct business in the marketplace in the United States. That consent degree decree, we would assert, has been regularly and routinely violated.

So much so, in fact, that, as the author mentioned, and I'm quoting from a Wall Street Journal article that just came out yesterday afternoon, the Department of Justice is preparing to file an antitrust lawsuit against the Ticketmaster parent, Live Nation, in the coming weeks that would allege that the nation's biggest concert promoter has leveraged its dominance in a way that undermined competition for ticketing live events, according to people familiar with the matter. So that's imminent. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are a vertical monopoly.

As Mr. King noted, they represent artists, many artists. And those that they don't represent, they strike fear in the heart of those artists to try to strike against the monopoly. They own a number of venues. And the other venues that they don't own, they have exclusivity deals such that if anyone were to try to use a competitor for ticketing at that venue, they could be blackballed. And this is not made up. There are examples of all of these, multiple examples.

Those exclusivity deals really tie the hands of artists. Even a very high profile artist like Taylor Swift, who is selling out stadiums. Only five of her stadium tour shows last year were in non Ticketmaster venues. Only five out of, I think 50-60 all sold out, of course, in fact. So these are bullying tactics, is what they are. Monopolies never do anything to reduce their power. They only do things to expand or increase their power or extend it into perpetuity.

In fact, even some Members of our coalition, not myself, but other Members of our coalition, have felt bullied leading into today's hearing to even speak out publicly, which is kind of amazing when you think about it. This Bill opens things up so that consumers have a fighting chance. I would just like to note as I wrap up, Mister Chairman, and thank you for your indulgence. Most sports teams have deals with the secondary market participants. Why?

Because if they did not, they would face a revolt from their own season ticket holders. So we would urge you to support this Bill. I would just like to close by saying there is a reference in paragraph one of the live nation opposition letter that gives me problems, and I'd like to just mention it publicly, very briefly. They use the word scalping. I think that word is deeply offensive and it shouldn't be used, let alone in paragraph one of the monopoly zone letter.

And I also feel like if you're going to talk about what they talk about, which is the secondary market, the biggest player in the secondary market is Live Nation and Ticketmaster itself. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you very much. Those in opposition. First, before we do that, open up for questions for Members. Any questions for the author or the witnesses?

Yeah, if I could, please. I'm curious if resale price caps have been part of the conversation. Other states have looked to this to prevent fans from paying greater than face value for tickets on the secondary market. As many small venues and nonprofit stages see a dollar 25 face value ticket going for as high as 70, $80 on the secondary platform.

Yeah, I know that we've got, and I'm happy to have my witnesses, also at the approval of the chair, also discuss this. But you know, I'm willing to put everything on the table because in the end of the day, I want to make sure this is fair for consumers. But what is most important to me is ensuring that we allow for competition at the original point of sale.

That to me is the core crux of the issue in terms of really ensuring that there's more consumer choice. But I'm happy to entertain other options as well as the Bill if the Bill moves through Committee today.

Okay, and my last question is, what's the policy rationale for creating different ticketing prices for different entertainment types?

Sorry, can you say that one more time?

Yeah, the policy. What's the policy rationale for creating different ticketing prices? Or, I'm sorry, ticketing practices? Not prices, practices for different entertainment types.

Oh, just in terms of the teams, is that what you're, that's what you're getting at? You know, I met with the teams a couple times over the last couple weeks, you know, and thinking about the dynamic of a fan's relationship with team, I think is different than these large music events that we experience. Often you have season ticket holders, and that, I think is a different relationship than the sort of one off experience.

It just felt like a different experience when I talked to the major league baseball folks, you've got major league baseball team selling dollar 10 bleacher seats. That's not the problem. Those aren't going out and then getting sold for dollar 15 or dollar 30 or dollar 80. To me, that was not the crux of the challenge, the crux of the problem that we were trying to fix. So we listened to what they said.

The chair and I discussed, I discussed with Members on the Committee, and it felt like a different experience. And so that's why we created an exemption for them to honor that experience.

Thank you.

If I could, Mister chair, just on Assemblymember Lackey's first question, if I could, with the chair's permission. Assemblymember Lackey, Maryland just had an experience that I think is illuminating for your first question.

Everything was on the table theoretically at one point but at the end of the day, based on public reporting and also folks that I know who work on these issues nationally, including our own organization and in other states, it was the monopoly itself that at the end of the day objected to the kind of resale caps that you're discussing. And that's been documented in the media as well. So just to put a fine point on that, thank you.

Miss McKinnor.

I'd like to thank the author for working on this so hard. We know how she works on her bills and we know that she's going to work with all sides. And I just look forward to seeing how you end up negotiating this with the stakeholders. I also want to just bring up the theatre, the little small theaters that we've discussed. And so like the, well, pantages is not so small, but it's still a theater. The theater. So how does this Bill address the theaters?

Yeah, I think in the Committee analysis. Give me 1 second here so I can find it. I just found it right before I came in. Give me 1 second. That current law exempts nonprofits, and so it's my sense that they would be exempted also in this Bill as well. Yep. And I've heard from my local theaters too, and we don't want to put any undue hardships on that.

Great. Next we'll have the audience participation, so if you like to speak in support. Oh, sorry. Please, Mister Valencia

Please, Mister Valencia Chairman, Miss Wicks, really appreciate you taking the time to have conversations with many Members on this Committee regarding the different potential impacts that this Bill could have with stakeholders back home and across the state. One point that I would like to make note of and just hope that through conversation is addressed is while I agree with the sentiment that competition is good, I do think that competition brings out the best in all of us.

I want to make sure that this doesn't have unintended consequences when it comes to the advancements in technology and accessing these tickets, whether it's through bot mechanisms and when the intent of the Bill is to ensure that the consumer average people have better access through other means. This doesn't open up a door for the ability for technology to take advantage of a situation. So let's just be mindful of that point. I would appreciate your commitment to addressing that issue as well.

Yeah, absolutely. And I know that that's been a hot topic of conversation given the Taylor Swift situation, and there's been other attempts at that as well. And I know there's other ticketing bills in the mix still, but it's a priority of mine because it's a priority for consumers. So, and I know you of all people honor competition, given your background. Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Yes, I appreciate the author for working in this space. I know how challenging it is, and I really admire you for bringing this forward. I have one question. What I'm trying to understand how it works is if you have multiple sites listing the same ticket on a primary site, primary seller, but it's the same ticket, how do you prevent fraud? How do we make sure consumers aren't purchasing the same ticket through these, let's say five various sites that are listing the same one.

So, well, we've struck the API language out of the Bill with the conversation I had with the chair today. And we have to figure out the correct mechanism to ensure that we end the exclusivity at the original point of sale. We have some ideas on that, but we need to flesh it out and we need a little bit more time.

And I also want to work with the chair and the consultants and other Members of the Committee to make sure that we're actually doing that the right way, so that we're guarding against fraud, we're ensuring that there's competition, and we're doing so in a fair way. So that's the commitment that chair and I have made, is to figure out what is the right mechanism in order to do that.

And we're exploring other models, other places do this, other countries do this, you know, I know we like to think that, like, we do everything first here in California, but we also want to see if we can have some lesson learned, lessons learned from other places that we could then incorporate into this Bill.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Now we'll open up for the audience in support. Please come to the microphone. State your name, position or organization you represent. Just your name, organization in support.

Mister Chairman, Members. James Jack here. On behalf of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, we have a support position on the Bill as it entered Committee today. We will be looking at the amendments moving forward, but we'll are very grateful to the author.

We know she's a champion on this issue and will continue to support this effort. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good morning, I'm Greg Johnson, Board President of the Arts Council for Long Beach and also a long, long, long term industry veteran. This is robust conversation. I commend you guys for having it. I would like to ask the Committee to. Yes, please, please, please consider the pricing. Everyone that I talked to across the community said it's too doggone high to attend to concert.

These fees are just too much. I really love that. Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. I'm in support.

Thank you very much.

My name is Jess Gonzalez. I'm with the Si Sa Puede Community Organization of the President of the Central Valley and we're in support of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Next witness. You can bring it down.

Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Laura Dooley, I'm with StubHub and we're happy to support the legislation today.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Julian Canete, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in support.

Thank you.

Michael Saragossa, on behalf of Hispanic 100 in support.

Thank you.

Doctor Ruben Guerra, chair of the Latin Business Association in support.

Noe Flores. On behalf of the Central Valley Yemeni Association in support.

Thank you very much. Next, we'll have those in opposition. Primary testimony in opposition. Would you please come and take a seat at the table? We will ask if Mister King or someone can. oh, there are nevermind. Right there. You have two minutes. Yes. Two minutes for two people.

Two for two.

Yes. You guys have to figure out who's gonna speak.

I'm going, I took the mic.

Please state your name. Thank you.

My name is Sam Hunt and is both a representative for the Music Artists Coalition known as MAC and a constituent of Miss Wicks. We must respectfully oppose AB 2808. MAC is a coalition of musicians in their respective fan communities that's dedicated to protecting and promoting artists rights. I'm a managing partner and an agent at Wasserman Music, a major talent agency representing over 2500 artists acts that play everything from basements to football stadiums.

Wasserman Music is a global company with nearly 1000 employees, but as it happens, I myself live in Oakland and live in the Wicks District. AB 2808 is deeply flawed and punishes artists unnecessarily, establishing a dangerous system, or lack thereof, for fans. Artists agree that the taping process is deeply flawed and in need of reform. But the main cause for frustration and confusion among fans is unequivocally unregulated brokers, antiquatedly referred to as scalpers and the secondary platforms that allow them to exist and flourish.

Artists, venues and the workers who dedicate their lives to making these shows possible don't see a penny from these secondary market sales. Ticket brokers use sophisticated software and questionable techniques to gain access to inventory before fans, undermining the artist fan relationship these actions by brokers are responsible for the vast majority of frustrations among the ticket buying community. The transferability provisions that are included in AB 2808 would severely undermine our ability to protect our fans and to nurture our relationship with them.

They would inevitably result in the very things that cause such frustration, inscrutable inventory, fake or questionable tickets, confusion in the case of cancellations or reschedules and logistical chaos at the venues. We artists, promoters and ticketing companies put in tremendous effort to ensure that our fans are not subjected to price gouging, fake tickets, and have fair access to events across the country. These efforts are consistently undermined by secondary brokers.

Open source ticketing essentially legitimizes all of the schemes that brokers have built and would give them, not artists, all of the power artists need to be able to attach terms and conditions to their tickets. But this bill strips artists of their rights without their consent and emboldens and supports ticket brokers, resellers and illegal bots who are able to acquire and sell seats unchecked, exorbitant prices.

It would be a huge step backwards for artists and their fans, a paradoxical result to the stated consumer protection intention of the Bill. We understand the author's intent is not to hurt artists, and I appreciate our conversation so far. No one cares more about the fans than the artists themselves who've established lifelong relationships with their supporters, and no one stands to lose more from that relationship becoming damaged than the artists themselves.

Year after year, we on behalf of artists, come back to the Legislature with the lived knowledge that these are the issues that are hurting artists and their fans the most. And yet, instead of focusing on these very real and pressing issues, we're again facing a Bill that removes artists rights rather than empowering fans. Again, we appreciate the author's intent here, but we must respectfully ask for your no vote at this time time.

Thank you very much. Next witness. Two minutes, please.

Hi Mister chair Members, I'm Peter Williams. I'm here today. I'm the artistic Director at the Freight and Salvage in Berkeley, which is in the Authors district. We're a nonprofit venue serving the community since 1968. We're also a Member of California Arts Advocates, a lobbying organization for the arts, culture and creative industries, representing thousands of nonprofit arts organization artists and culture workers across the state. And we're here in opposition unless significantly amended.

While we agree consumers should have control over how and where they purchase primary tickets and how or where they may want to resell a ticket that they can't use, unchecked proliferation of the secondary ticket market system as configured here is not the solution. We want to express our alignment with Niva, the national independent Venue Association representing independent venues at festival promoters throughout the state.

In arguing that, unless significantly, Kentley amended AB 2808 will harm nonprofit and independent venues throughout the state, there are several major concerns that we have the Freight and Salvage does not utilize a ticket provider like many nonprofit venues, we use a CRM to sell tickets and utilize volunteer staff at our lines. Yet we still run into fake tickets or tickets sold with significant price markups regularly from name providers like StubHub and Vivint.

The goal of ending exclusivity is a big part of this Bill, which sounds good in concept, but creates real challenges for independent and nonprofit venues. As I mentioned, exclusivity with a ticketing provider is not a problem for nonprofit stages. Niva California's Members are generally too small to be clients of Ticketmaster, for example, and there are already a bunch of providers that cater to independent and smaller venues.

Exclusivity relationships offer the stability of a trusted ticketing provider to integrate into the marketing infrastructure and provide guaranteed security and consistent consumer interaction. In many cases, independent venues are in the driver's seat, with multiple ticketing providers competing for their business to offer more favorable terms. Secondly, the Bill would make it unlawful for a venue to deny access to any event based on a secondary market ticket.

In practice, a venue that denies a fan with a fake ticket that was bought on the secondary market access to show would now have to show that the denial was because the ticket was faked, not because it was sold on a secondary platform or risk a $2,500 civil penalty.

If you can complete your thought. I'm sorry, if you can complete your thought.

Anyway, let me just move to my last sentence here. We would propose a significant redirection of the Bill that would empower fans, protect venues and artists, and allow independent and nonprofit venues to flourish for more competitive arts ecosystem.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'll have the audience participation. We'll ask to invite you to microphone those in opposition. Would you please state your name and organization? Then after which we'll bring it back to the Committee for any comments. Questions.

Tim Lynch, on behalf of two clients, the ambassador theater group in San Francisco, who remains opposed and concerns about the Bill and the Golden State Warriors. And we appreciate the author's work and understanding of what the sports teams do.

But we're even with the sports exemption. We think in practice that won't work and we probably remain opposed to the Bill.

Thank you very much.

Mister chair and Members, Alex Torres with Brownstein here on behalf of the National Independent Venue Association of, California, representing approximately 500 independent brick and mortar venues and festival promoters throughout the state. Also here to register opposition, respectfully, from Jim Cornette, owner of Harlow's, President Neva California, Executive Director of the California Capital Venues Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness,

Mister Chairman and Members, Eli Garcia for Live Nation Entertainment in opposition.

Thank you very much. Next witness,

Mister Chairman, good morning. Awa Kadani, representing the Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Clippers. Although we definitely appreciate the author's diligent work and moving the Bill in this direction, we remain opposed to the Bill in print. We look forward to working with the author noodling through those intricacies that affect venue owners, which are the rams and the Clippers.

And I'm sure some of my colleagues share that same sentiment. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next witness, sir.

Mr Chair and Members, Grace Koplin, Brownstein. Registering opposed unless amended. On behalf of Joe Rinaldi, owner-operator of the music box in San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. My name is Gabriel Docteau. I'm co founder of the San Francisco Venue Coalition and operator at August hall in San Francisco and submitting opposition today unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

I am James Lawson from Broadway Sacramento. We're a nonprofit here in Sacramento and we oppose the Bill.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Hi there. Mckay Carney, on behalf of the San Jose Sharks, in opposition. Really appreciate the author's willingness to continue conversations.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good morning. Carlos Singer, on behalf of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Hollywood bowl, the La Philharmonic, in addition to operating the symphony orchestra, operates many cherished venues, Walt Disney concert Hall, the Hollywood bowl, the Ford Theater. We register our opposition to the Bill as currently drafted and would love to see the proposed amendments as soon as we could because we would welcome the chance to participate in addressing some of the concerns the Committee seeks to redress. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Andrew Governar, on behalf of the San Francisco 49ers, I'll associate my comments with the other sports team, but just to let you know, the San Francisco 49ers is a publicly owned stadium, so the effects of this Bill has other ramifications as well.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, concerns. Miss McKinnor?

Yes, again, I appreciate the author taking on this issue. I love concerts, and people who know me know that I love to go to concerts, but they have gotten really, really, really expensive. And so that is a problem for consumers because as a teenager, my first concert I attended was at the Forum to see the Jackson Five, and it wasn't that expensive. About five of us went. Now, to go see a big artist like that would be so much, maybe $5,000.

And so we want to make sure that it's affordable for the consumers. We want to make sure that it's safe. We have big venues, big sports events coming to my district, the Olympics and the World Cup and some other big events. And we want to make sure that it's going to be safe and that they, you know, our tickets won't be what we used to call scalped, but I don't even know what you call them now on the online market.

But so that I'm going to give you an aye vote today because I know that you're going to work with those stakeholders and we'll see where we get. Thank you.

Was that a motion?

A motion?

Is there a second? Thank you. Any additional questions, concerns from the Committee hearing? Hearing none. Miss Wicks, you may close.

Thank you. I just want to appreciate the testimony of the opposition witness, both of whom I think are constituents of mine. So appreciate you all coming up today. And a lot of the concerns that were raised, one on the nonprofit side, and we did find the mention in the analysis that nonprofits are exempt from current law. We can certainly add that to this as well to clarify that, because that's not the issue from my perspective.

But I appreciate you and hear you loud and clear and we'll work to clarify that in the Bill. Secondly, I think a lot of what the opposition raised concerns around was the secondary market. And as asked, I think by maybe it was Mister Lackey, I can't remember. Everything's on the table from my perspective. I want to create a Bill that is really good for consumers and we're looking at all the different models.

And so I asked the opposition to come to me with ideas on how we can strengthen the Bill in a way that you all think helps reach the same goal. Because I do think we have the same goals. So let's talk about what that could look like. I still hold firm though, that I do think competition at the primary point of sale is critical and I think that that is important.

And so I want to continue to work towards that end and figure out the right mechanism towards that. I was looking up recently just the fees question which you just raised, Miss McKinner, and some of you I'm sure, saw this, there was a Drake concert last year. Someone tweeted about show the screenshot of their purchase on Ticketmaster. The tickets were dollar 544 for two, but then the service fees were an additional $527, almost doubling the price. Doubling the price, you know, that is exorbitantly expensive.

There's equity issues there, not only in terms of who has the privilege to be able to afford those things, but then who also has the privilege to sit around on their computer and press refresh all day long trying to get a ticket. So this is a very complex issue. I feel that inherently and have spent a lot of time working on this Bill and we're just beginning the process. So it's going to be a lot more conversations.

I want to find the right solution that ultimately protects our consumers. I want to figure out a way to strengthen our relationship with fans and the artists. And I'm all people can make money. There's a lot of chains in between the sort of artist and the fan and a lot of pieces in between. That's fine.

But I want it to be fair and I want the consumers to have transparency, to have competition, to have the ability to make real choice and for the greater good of people to go out and enjoy live entertainment, which is so critical to our economy here in California. So I know there's issues. I will work with anyone on this Committee, Democrat or Republican, who cares about this issue and who wants to work with me on it. I need thought partnership.

I don't have a monopoly on good ideas at all. In fact, I need other people's thoughts on this. That's why we're looking at other models in other places as well. But let's do it right here in California, and let's actually create a system where we have that competition and we have fairness in the market so we can demonstrate to the rest of the world that we know how to do it here.

And it can be a model for the rest of the nation while the Department of Justice investigation is going on and all the other things. And with that, I honor to work with you, Mister Gibson, Mister chair, and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We appreciate the author, for one, her articulation, her willingness to work with all sides to try to reach some kind of resolution to this issue. This item has been moved by Miss McKinnor and second by Mister Fong. And this motion is do pass to the privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Madam Chair, please call the row.

[Roll Call]

We will keep the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now we're waiting for our final author, Mister Mccarty, can. Secretary, would you please open the roll for absent Members on file item number one.

[Roll Call]

Will keep that roll open for absent Members.

That was for 1996 Valencia aye on 1996.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First I'm presenting AB 2720, Art in Public Places act. As we know, this is our state capitol. We have plenty of state buildings, lots of construction going on. Sometimes when they do new state buildings like our state capitol, they have some type of art integrated into the building. Sometimes they don't, and you can tell when they do and when they don't.

So about 40 years ago, the City of Sacramento developed a program called Art in Public Places, which is when they build a public building, they have a very small sliver of the project dedicated to public art. And it really makes a difference in these public places.

And this would be based upon this model, which would ask the Department of General Services to establish a process that 1% of the project budget would go for art in public places, which we would have a Commission and a process to make sure we have local artists involved and appropriate art involved. This would require the Department of General Services to consult with the California Arts Council as part of the process. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And with me today is a representative from the Art in Public Places and the California Arts Advocates. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. You may proceed with your witness. Two minutes, please.

Good morning, Chair Gipson and Members of the Committee. First, I want to thank you for your support of the arts and for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Jennifer Lane and I'm Executive Director of the San Benito County Arts Council, a local arts agency based in Speaker Rivas' district. And today I'm speaking on behalf of California Arts Advocates, which is our statewide arts and culture advocacy organization in support of AB 2720.

We support this bill because percent for art programs are an effective way for states to foster access to the arts and increase the aesthetic value of state owned buildings and public spaces. In the US, there are more than 350% for art programs in 27 states and territories. These programs create jobs for artists, designers and fabricators and have much broader community and economic benefits. The National Governors Association states, the question of how to foster high quality places is one of the most important in economic development today.

By providing amenities, connectivity and a sense of place, public art and well designed public spaces can be part of the answer. In my own experience in San Benito county, public art has had a significant unifying effect. We recently commissioned a large scale underpass mural, as part of the Clean California program with the State Department of Transportation, called the Fabric of Life in the very small town of San Juan Bautista.

This mural weaves diverse images of cattle ranchers, folklorico dancers, indigenous plants and animals, and characters from the world-renowned El Teatro Campesino, creating a visual tapestry of the local community. As a result of this mural, downtown businesses have reported increased foot traffic and sales.

The mural has contributed positively to neighborhood vibrancy and safety, and most importantly, residents are able to see themselves in this space, creating a sense of collective identity, belonging, and community pride. AB 2720 would uplift these opportunities and benefits across all of California, from rural San Juan Bautista to downtown LA and beyond. So for these reasons and more, we offer our support of AB 2720 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. My name is Donald Gensler. I am the Art in Public Places Manager for the City of Sacramento, and I'm here appearing before you as a technical witness. I'm not going to speak directly or answer any questions directly on the bill itself, but wanted to give the Committee a sense of this ordinance that we enacted here in the City of Sacramento in 1977.

It provides 2% of eligible capital improvement program funds that are designated for the selection commission and purchase of public art. However, it goes far beyond that, and I think that was one of the things that I wanted to share with you all today, that in fact, through the history, through the impacts, both social and economic, and through the place making that it creates throughout our city, this ordinance really gives Sacramento a sense of vibrancy in art and culture.

Briefly, in terms of the history, in 1977, the very first artwork that was created was a gateway piece by Gerald Wahlberg. He was a Professor at the time at CSU and created a gateway into what is now DOCO. From there, we have continued on with over 650 works of art, both permanent and portable, in the city.

At the time when the ordinance was enacted, we were a dual agency with the city and the county, and as of 2019, we did separate from the county, but still maintain over 500 works of art in the city and continue to support artists through that process. Wanted to talk a little bit also about the economic and social impacts. This ordinance gives artists the opportunity to make work, to earn a living, to be a part of the society in which they live and are active role players in.

It also allows them to connect with those communities and those people that live here in Sacramento. Whether those artists are here from Sacramento or from outside of Sacramento.

If you can complete your thought.

Yes, sir. And just lastly, the place making, it creates a sense of place. Most recently we're working on a project funded through the 2% ordinance. It's the Hanami Line. It's going to be right next to the Mosaic building. With bringing in Japanese and Japanese American communities to share the beauty of Hanami and sculpture that will be part of that. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much. Next we'll have witnesses and support from the audience. Please state your name, organization if you represent an organization. Seeing and hearing none, I want to bring it back to the Committee. Thank you very much. Next we'll have witnesses in opposition of the bill. Would you please come forward and take a seat at the table? Hearing and seeing no witness in opposition. Anyone from the audience wishing to register your opposition for 2720, this is the time to do so.

Hearing and seeing none. I want to bring it back to the Committee. It's been properly moved and seconded. Any questions for the author? Hearing and seeing none. Mr. McCarty, would you please close?

Yes. Thank you. Certainly would ask for your support. For just an example here, you talked about some great examples here in Sacramento. Many of my colleagues aren't from here, from Los Angeles, the desert, Los Angeles County, LA County-- Man, all LA County people here-- and Orange County. So they may not know these projects.

But when you go to the airport on Thursday and you're going out on the way on the freeway at Highway 50, you may see a project by the river there where they're planting a bunch of Japanese cherry trees right there. And that is the Matsui Park Hanami Line. That was a public project there for the Department of Utilities. And that's a classic example how you can have a public project and have a gathering place as well.

So, that's exhibit A of what we want to accomplish here with our state project. So with that, give you an example and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'm very happy to see that this bill includes the DGS would be required to consult with the California Arts Council. I would strongly hope that the artwork and the procurement as part of the process will be diverse and culturally significant in nature. And thank you very, very much. And we've been properly moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll? And it's due pass to Appropriation Committee.

[Roll call]

Thank you very much, Mr. McCarty. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members. You have a second bill before us, and please proceed when ready.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the second bill on a topic that this Committee is familiar with. We had a fall informational hearing on youth tackle football and safety. We had a robust policy hearing a few months ago as well. And this continues that conversation to make sure that we keep kids safe and healthy with sports like youth tackle football. You know, there's plenty of research that comes out that frankly, raises the safety questions over and over.

But I know there are questions from people who have disbelief in some of that research. So this asks the State of California, via our Surgeon General, to engage on this topic. And I will say that as you may recall, after our hearing a few months ago, our Governor came out and spoke up on this topic. And he asked us.

He asked me to come forward with a subsequent bill with us today to direct the state, the surgeon General, to study this issue and look at the safety and long term impacts on young kids brains related to youth tackle football. So that's what we're doing here today, following up on that request. This is certainly a work in progress. We're working with the governor's office on some ways how we craft this. Right now, it's the surgeon General is the task holder for this entity.

We could alter that along the way. But with us today, we have a good starting point from the bill that we heard three years ago. Oh, we do take the technical Committee amendments and thank you for your work on this. And with me is my witness from the California Neurologist Society. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We're speaking about item number four, Assembly Bill 3047. Your witness, you have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Steve Cattolica. I represent the California Neurology Society and I'm speaking on behalf of their President, Stella Legarda. Doctor Legarda can't be here today. But we would like to clarify for the Committee, the Surgeon General, as well as all here present, that the importance of education of athletes, parents and the general public is primary and the inherent risks associated with repetitive head impacts in tackle football, particularly among young athletes.

Pediatric populations have a heightened risk of repetitive head impacts due to their anatomical and physiological characteristics, all parents know that. Their maturing bodies predispose them to accelerating and decelerating injuries, even in the absence of her trauma. There's no question that cumulative head impacts can lead to traumatic encephalopathy syndrome, TES, a disorder that emerges within 10 to 20 years, causing severe mental and emotional difficulties for affected individuals and their families.

These challenges tend to worsen over time and are frequently unresponsive to treatment and can have fatal consequences. Autopsies of young athletes with TES have revealed findings consistent with chronic traumatic encephalopathy and other early neurodegenerative changes, even in individuals who are never diagnosed with a concussion in their lifetime. Autopsy findings find that CTE across all age groups reinforces that correlation with TES. The CNS champions parents rights and their role in nurturing their children's well being.

We underscore the need for young athletes and their custodians to be fully informed about the inherent risks of youth tackle football, potentially impacting their young future as adults. SB 3047 will provide the scientific and educational basis that will reduce that to an unnecessary risk, and we look forward to your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support from the audience, would you please line up in support? Seeing and hearing none. Okay, we're going to move to opposition. Any opposition wishing to register, please come up and take a seat. You have two minutes. Please state your name and proceed when ready.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'll make my remarks brief. Good morning, Committee Members, Chair Gipson. My name is Ron White and I am the President of the California Youth Football Alliance. I respectfully come before you today in opposition of Assembly Bill 3047. As written in its current form, AB 3047 seeks to both isolate and investigate in a very discriminatory fashion the lone sport of youth tackle football.

In its very nature and limited scope, AB 3047 focuses on a single sport in California and does not mention nor reference the risk associated with participating in countless other contact sports or activities statewide, such as soccer, wrestling, basketball, junior boxing, MMA, rugby, flag football, lacrosse, motocross, bicycling, and many other sports often played in more affluent settings. AB 3047 is riddled with ambiguous language. It lacks transparency, and in its scope is extremely narrow and fixated on the sport of youth tackle football right here in California.

There is no legislative nor clinical precedent for establishing an age of play for any sport or athletic activity in the State of California. We do not view AB 3047 as a companion bill to AB 1, the California Youth Football act, but rather an attempt by its author to further isolate and alienate the youth tackle football community with no regard for health and welfare of all youth or high school athletes in California.

To be very, very clear, the California Youth Football alliance welcomes unbiased, equitable and unilateral study of all youth sports and their potential inherent risk. As Californians, we all have a collective duty to ensure the health, safety and proper development associated with playing all youth sports. AB 3047 simply does not do that. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no date. Excuse me. A no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Audience. We go to the audience. Anyone wishing to register your opposition to 3047 please approach the microphone. Hearing and seeing. Now I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions for the author? Hearing and seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Mister Valencia, please.

Some brief comments if I may.

Please.

At the previous Committee hearing where we heard the former youth football bill, I shared a little bit about my history and experience playing what I believe to be the most beautiful sport on planet Earth, yet also likely the most violent and dangerous sport. Considering what we know today when it comes to youth football, I think this is a worthy conversation that should continue. It's my understanding that may not be the case in California, but across the nation, there are already limitations to youth activities.

And I think we need to be mindful of the impact that these types of activities have on youth moving forward. Happy to support this bill today and would appreciate being a co author on the bill and continue the conversation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Mr. McCarty, you may close.

Yeah. Thank you. This is certainly an emotional topic. This is an apple pie type thing. One of the Committee Members and I had a big conversation about this is why is government getting involved? And the question to me raised to the concerns outlined over here is this sport is way more impactful on kids brains than any other activity. The research is crystal clear. We spent 3 hours in the fall going over this. One of the activities was mentioned was flag football.

Well, brain injuries for kids 16 to 14 and lifetime brain impacts are between 15 and 20 times greater with youth tackle than youth flag. And so it's kind of like the issue that we talk about sometimes, Mr. Chair, about firearms in kids. Like why do we make policies on firearms for kids and research? Well, because firearms kill kids way more than bow and arrows do or axe throwing, there's an event that has way more of a proportional impact on the lifetime health of our youngest athletes.

And this is why it's worthy to zero in on this activity. Parents are voting with their feets left and right. More parents are playing flag than youth tackle football than ever before. And research comes out every other month outlining the issues here. And this is certainly a heated debate. The Governor has asked the Legislature to further this conversation and direct the state to look in this more with options. And so this is what we're doing just here today. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I want to say, I want to acknowledge your years of working on this particular piece of legislation and support and time that you spent on this particular topic. I appreciate your focus on looking into the safety concerns around the participants of youth tackle football.

As I've said during the hearing on Assembly Bill 734 and back in January, parents deserve to have all of the information before deciding to sign waivers and allow their children to play a sport that that has a high degree of risk. I sincerely hope that you could, that you should, at this bill assigned, continue to work with those individuals that are in fact, in opposition of this bill. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. It's been moved by Mr. Valencia. Is there a second?

Second by Miss Mckinnor. With that, this bill is due pass. And this bill, the motion is due pass as amended to Appropriation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much, Mister McCarty. I think that we'll open the roll for the absent Members to add on and then we'll report the votes.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. I want to say thank you very much to everyone and the arts and entertainment and sports and tourism Committee is now adjourned and completed. Thank you.