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

Good morning, everybody. We're going ahead to call this Committee hearing to order for the Assembly arts, entertainment, sports and tourism hearing of Tuesday, April 82025. We we have three items on our agenda today. We're going to begin as a Subcommitee until we have a time that we can establish a quorum.

Each Bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each main witness would get up to two minutes each. I invite you to feel free to submit any written testimony through the position portal on the Committee's website. It, of course, will become a part of the official record for the bills.

Our hearing room will be open for attendance of this hearing. And this morning we are in room 127 at the State capitol. Everybody is encouraged to watch the hearing from the live stream on the Assembly's website.

And for those attending in person, please know that any conduct which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes disorderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. I want to thank you all for being here this morning. And with that, we have an author with us. And so we'll go ahead and move forward to item number one.

This is Assembly Bill 666. And when you are ready, Mr. Rogers, you may begin your presentation.

Well, first of all, thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. We're going to start with a really hairy topic this morning. And I know you in arts and tourism deal with challenging things all the time.

And I'm sure every year when we have an election, people have their own opinions about what hairy biped should best represent California. But for our district, the answer is Bigfoot. For us, it's a huge tourism industry up on the north coast. Of course, the first purported sighting of Bigfoot was in Willow Creek in Humboldt County.

Our local paper was the first to use the term Bigfoot to describe Sasquatch. And if anybody has driven up 101, you'll see those shops on the side of the road. We have a huge tourism economy that happens.

Willow Creek actually hosts a Bigfoot festival every single year where the size of the town doubles for that week as people come from far and wide to try to hunt Bigfoot in the redwoods. Our bill is simple.

It recognizes the historical, cultural aspects of Bigfoot in the north of California by designating him as the official state cryptid. For folks who don't know, a cryptid is a thing that is believed to exist from folks but has not been scientifically proven. And so we are very excited.

We have locals who want to throw a parade who are excited to recognize the contribution of Bigfoot to our local tourism economy. And with that, I ask for your support.

Thank you. Are there any supporting witnesses today?

Okay, no witnesses. Are there any members of the public here that wish to register a statement of support? Public microphone is over here. Are you opposition? Got it. Anybody want to register a statement of support? Okay, seeing none. We'll invite a witness up here for opposition testimony. You will have up to two minutes.

Thank you Chair and Committee Members. I appreciate your time. At a time when the state is largely unfairly criticized for not prioritizing issues for the people, I think this bill really comes at the wrong time. My name is Will Abrams. I represent a coalition of wildfire survivors who are really struggling to make ends meet.

We know about the recent wildfires in Los Angeles. I am from Northern California. We are still-- we are left 30% short from the payment that was due to us from Pacific Gas & Electric company.

And I know that this bill is meant to be somewhat entertaining for the committee, but we take this seriously and because it is such a distraction.

I remember after the fires in 2017, soon after there was an alerting message that went across the emergency broadcasting system that said, 'Alert, we want to let you all know Santa Claus is in the air and descending upon a community near you.'

All in jest, but using our emergency resources, using the funds from our local governments to fund this communication at a time when everyone was really suffering. And I think that this bill also lands at a time when people are really suffering.

If we want to focus on the substance of this issue, certainly Bigfoot is acclaim to Washington, acclaim to Oregon. And of course, we may want to steal them for California. We may also want to steal the Loch Ness monster from Scotland, but I don't think that that is appropriate.

Let's also focus on the fact that Bigfoot's habitat has been largely destroyed by utility-caused wildfires. And so maybe instead of the state cryptid being Bigfoot, we might want to focus on Smokey the Bear or perhaps the new PG-- I'll wrap up. Or perhaps the new PG&E who puts their victims and puts the ratepayers first.

That is certainly also a mythical creature. And I just really feel that we need to focus on the issues of the people. And I know that the author also wants to do that. And I think we need to move past this bill and onto important issues. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to register a statement of opposition, or position of opposition? Okay, seeing none. We'll take it back to Committee conversation. I want to begin by saying I want to thank the author for introducing us to this topic.

Something I did not know as well because I learned a lot through your introduction of this bill about the origins of this legend. Had presumed the whole time that this was something that originally came from the state of Washington. So I'm really proud as a Californian to kind of know about some of this history.

And, you know, you certainly are very much a champion for your district and highlighting the opportunities for tourism in our north coast. That said, I'm not going to have any position on the bill here today.

I recognize it may be a first conversation, but through this conversation, I've also come to learn that there are other interested cryptids that are recognized throughout our regions of the state.

Very important to your region of the state, but I'm not sure it rises for me to a level of that we want to consider one over anybody else as something of significance that we want to memorialize that. So it's where I'm at on the bill here today. I certainly invite Committee Members as well to share any of their opinions on as well.

But with that, I will have a none recommendation. Are there any other Committee Member questions or comments? Okay, seeing none. I invite the author to close. We are still in the subcommitee and at a time that we'll be taking on votes as well, we'll see if there's a motion to entertain the bill.

Thank you so much. I think that there's always value in having moments of levity, even amongst difficult tasks. And we have over 2000 bills in the state legislature this year that are dealing with very real issues. This is a fun bill. It's a fun bill for our district.

I understand that the chair might be bought and paid for by the big chupacabra lobby that exists from San Diego. But we're going to continue to push it forward. And I just thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Senator Rogers. We'll entertain a motion when we have a quorum. With that, I have another author here. Thank you, Mr. Bryan, for being with us this morning. When you're ready, go ahead and situate yourself and if you have any supporting witnesses. This is item number three on our agenda, AB 1349.

And when you're ready, you can begin your presentation.

Thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 1349, a Bill that among other things, ends the practice of speculative ticketing by requiring the seller of a ticket to own or have a contractual right to sell the ticket before listing it on a resale platform.

Before I begin, I want to thank the Committee for their incredible work, incredible hard work on this Bill and I will be accepting the Committee amendments.

Every year, fans across the state who are trying to see their favorite artists are deceived by secondary market resellers, who sell the tickets before they even go on sale before they have a right to sell the tickets. Many of these tickets don't even exist at all. This harmful practice is known as speculative ticketing, and it's inherently anti-consumer.

In the vast majority of cases, the seller does not disclose to the consumer that they are buying a speculative ticket. When they click, "Buy Now", fans aren't actually buying anything.

Unknowingly, fans are making a kind of a bet, paying up front that a bot or a scalper will be able to buy, at some point, a ticket at a lower price and then repost it on the secondary market to that consumer who has already paid for it.

Left with people hoping that an anonymous scalper is able to deliver, this practice exploits fans with hidden uncertainty and predatory markups, while undermining artists who work hard to create accessible, world-class experiences for their fan base. There are many examples of fans getting price gouged by the practice of spec ticketing.

A seller's spec ticket listed and sold Taylor Swift Era tickets for thousands of dollars above face value. This happens to artists in all genres.

Tom O'Dell is an indie artist who announced a tour. Right now, if you look up Tom O'Dell Tour tickets 2025, there will be listings on the secondary market for May 12, even though the presale for the official tickets does not start until 10am tomorrow. The same is true for Chris Brown's show in Detroit.

It goes on sale tomorrow, but you can buy tickets today at a markup. In fact, even on one website, it says there are only 3% of those tickets left. The tickets have not even gone on sale yet.

AB 1349 prohibits speculative ticketing and requires ticket sellers to own, possess, or have a contractual right to sell tickets before listing them. It prioritizes transparency by both requiring resellers and secondary resale platforms to disclose seat locations to consumers. Additionally, secondary platforms need to maintain records of ticket sales, deposits, and refunds for a minimum of 12 months.

AB 1349 also bans websites that mimic official event platforms or use terms like "sold out" when there are still tickets available on the primary site the site the artists have decided to post their tickets on. The Bill increases penalties for violators and ensures consumers are refunded for postponed or canceled events.

This Bill is so important that after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together. And Chris Kid Rock heading to the White House to meet with President Trump to sign an Executive order to try to address this issue. But here in California, we have the potential to do this the right way, to do this the complete way.

That's why we've introduced AB 1349. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, the Bill protects fans, supports artists and ensures a fair ticketing system. With me to testify is Joe Rinaldi is the owner of the Music Box in downtown San Diego and Ron Gubitz, who's the Executive Director of the Music Artists Coalition.

Thank you. You'll have up to two minutes each.

Good morning Mr. Chair and distinguished Committee Members. My name is Ron Gubitz and I'm the Executive Director of the Music Artist Coalition, or MAC. We're an organization that fights for music creators to have a voice at the table in policy discussions that directly impact their careers and their livelihoods.

So, thank you for the opportunity to be at that table here today. We simply believe that the people making the music should be the main drivers in determining how their tickets are sold. We strongly support support AB 1349 because it strengthens consumer protections and ticket sales and improves artists' protections in the live performance marketplace.

Thank you to the Chair and the author for their continued work on respecting artists' rights and consumer safeguards. This Bill recognizes that artists have the fundamental right to determine how their creative work is presented and that the relationship between artists and fans is primary.

It is the most important; we want to make sure that that is protected from exploitation. Artists invest their time, their energy and their money to deliver memorable live entertainment experiences for their fans. Think about a show you've been to in that what I call collective effervescence when the crowd and the artists are connecting.

And it is an amazing show. No one cares about more about music fans than the artists themselves. Our artists owe everything to their fans and we've seen those fans taken advantage of time and time again. The ban on speculative ticket sales is crucial.

As you know, it allows resellers to list tickets they don't actually possess, which leads to price inflation, potential fraud, and disrupts the artist-fan relationship. This bill's requirement that ticket sellers must own or possess or have contractual rights to sell a ticket to me seems obvious. It's before listing them that's crucial to maintaining marketplace integrity.

Ticketing should not be a futures market where shows are hedged and speculated like grapes, almonds, or cattle. We also strongly support the provisions addressing deceptive marketing practices of websites that trick consumers and unfairly drive up prices. To close, musicians create songs and a show. They hire caterers, bus drivers, roadies, electricians, venue staff.

Shouldn't the money from ticket sales go to those people, not siphoned off to others? I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Appreciate that, sir. Two minutes.

Thank you, Chairs and Members. I'm Joe Rinaldi, I am a General manager, managing partner of Music Box in the Little Italy district of San Diego.

I represent the venue in this equation, and in my role, I manage 60 employees in the local community and we come to work every day to serve an artist in their relationship with the fans.

Part of my role is, in addition to selling tickets, marketing shows, producing shows, maintaining safety, is to do consumer service at the rope line with customers who've been ripped off in a secondary ticketing exchange and oftentimes, that ripped off circumstance is in a completely unnecessary fashion.

This is a 95-5 transaction, where you might hear from consumers later specifically that there needs to be a secondary market so that liquidity with their tickets in case they can't get a babysitter. That is a small, small situation here, 95% of the time it's what's covered in this Bill specifically.

That's people who just want to intercede the ticketing process between the artist and the customer. So, I had plenty of tickets in my inventory. I maybe I'm a 700 person venue. Somebody comes to my rope line. I have tickets available at the box office.

These people come to my $25 show and they tell me that they have paid in the secondary market $400 for those tickets. They also say that they're in the front row. I'm a standing venue. I have to go through every possible piece of customer service. They're not my customers. They have a piece of paper in their hand.

It says StubHub on it. That office has been closed since 5pm on Friday. It's Saturday. They have no customer resource. I am their sole solver of problems. Everything in this Bill, AB 1349, covers that specific issue. Fourteen months ago, I made a testimony before Committee. You can look it up, we can provide links to it.

It specifically took about 10 minutes to talk about this. The date night where they've bought hotels, they bought dinner, they bought a babysitter. They're $1,000 in on the situation and they're looking at me for help because they have been deceived by a secondary market that has gone wild west on us.

There is, I see references to bots, acts and things like that. There is no enforcement in the secondary market for this particular and majority circumstance issue point. And we're absolutely looking for help. This Bill is a crucial first step towards taking help and calming down a crisis in customer confidence.

Customer confidence that I see at the firsthand at the Music Box in San Diego, at the rope line every single evening. We stand in full support of AB 1349 and we hope for its swift approval.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other Members of the public here in support? You can line up over here to your left. And at this time, we will also establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Ward. Present. Lackey. Elhawary. Present. Gonzalez. McKinnor. Here. Ortega. Here. Quirk-Silva. Here. Valencia. Zbur. Here.

And we have a quorum and we can proceed if you can give your name, any organization and your position.

My name is Jim Cornett. I'm the owner of Harlow's, the Starlight Room Cafe, Colonial, Small Cap Venues here in Sacramento. I am also the President of Neva California, representing over 300 venues across the state. We do not represent Live Nation. We are one of their largest competitors. We deal with ticketing issues from our customers nightly in our relationships-

We fully support. Thank you very much.

We don't have time for a statement. We just want to register your position on the record.

Mr. Chair, Members, Alex Torres, also with the National Independent Venue Association, with the indulgence of the chair, I'd like to read some venues that weren't able to make it today. It's brief.

On their behalf.

Yes. On their behalf. Exactly. In support, the Troubadour in Santa Monica. Another plan. Entertainment managing. The Greek in Berkeley. The Fox Theater in Oakland. The Bellwether in Los Angeles. Needle and Entertainment managing and booking for the Garden Grove in Anaheim. The Hot Monk Tavern in Nevada. The Fox Theater in Bakersfield. All NEVA Members, all in sport.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman of Members, Eloy Garcia for Live Nation Entertainment in support.

Thank you.

Tim Lynch, on behalf of the Golden State Warriors, in support of the author's efforts to ban speculative ticketing. We don't have a formal position on the Bill. We think there are some components that we need change to operationalize it. But we support the efforts here.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Ahwad Kidani, representing both the Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Clippers. Aligning our comments with my colleague Mr. Lynch. But definitely look forward to working with the author and thank his bravery and efforts. Thank you.

Andrew Govenar, on behalf of the Padres, the Dodgers, the Giants, the Angels, the A's, and The San Francisco 49ers, we are in support in concept of the Bill, but as the other sports interest said, we do have some workable issues we just need to figure out along the way. But we look forward to working with Mr. Bryan and support the Bill.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing nobody else wanting to register a position, we will entertain any opposition witnesses that have a statement. And I'm going to ask if. Mr. Rinaldi, if you could. We have a small room and only a couple of chairs, so I'll have you switch out. Thank you.

When you're ready, you can have up to two minutes. .

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Robert Harrell, I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We are in opposition to this measure. Let me be clear on one item. First of all, we have been working on the ticketing, what I refer to as the "ticketing wars", for many, many years now.

And we are concerned with speculative ticketing. But if you look at the actual language of the Bill, it goes far beyond what the author and sponsors and supporters say it does. So, how did we get here? Buried in that support list was the monopoly itself.

You have a current pending federal Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit that includes 39 of the 50 states plus D.C. asserting that live Nation Entertainment, which is Live Nation, Ticketmaster, and most of the venues that you heard from today have an exclusive deal with the monopoly or one of their subsidiaries or affiliates.

Because if they were to try to independently use a different ticketing entity, they'd be violating their contract and they would be essentially blackballed. It's hard to have a venue when you can't have a show because the monopoly or their tentacles blackball you. So we pointed out in our letter a few concerns.

I want to deal with speculative ticketing. I think two things here are being conflated into one, and there's a difference. Spoofing, like the gentleman from Music Box said. And I've been to that venue. It's a great venue.

Spoofing a site, pretending that you're actually the Music Box when you're not, misleading people into thinking a show is sold out when it's not. We oppose all that. If that's all this Bill did, we'd be in strong support. But it goes far beyond that. They're also conflating something else that I call, concierge services or it has different names. And this is basically, and I've done this myself,

I have spent 3,4,5 hours in the queue hitting refresh every so often, every 10 seconds or a minute to try to move up in the queue to get tickets to a show for my now 14 year old daughter or for myself on occasion. And if I'm willing to pay a little bit extra without.

I'm not being defrauded. I know that it's a line, it's someone who sits in line for me that I think that's a reasonable service and someone's not being defrauded.

We're at time, you have one concluding sentence.

My understanding is that there's not another witness. I don't know if I get a little bonus time. We do two minutes per witness. Okay.

The letter goes into some detail about problems with the Bill. We're happy to work with the author, but this Bill goes far beyond what the author and sponsor said it does. And it winds up serving the interests of the monopoly, and for that reason we oppose it. Thank you very much.

Yeah.

There is any other, another witness statement? Okay, we can have one more witness. Up to two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, James Jack, here, on behalf of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness representing the small and medium sized businesses engaged in the resale industry, I'll compliment Mr. Harrell's remarks by saying this.

This concept of speculative ticketing truly does conflate a number of issues, and it's often used to justify legislative efforts like this one seeking to eliminate competition in the resale marketplace. Which is particularly lucrative because it allows the primary ticketer to double dip by collecting fees twice on the same ticket.

Once when the ticket is on sale, and then again when the ticket is resold. Let me give you a common scenario for a ticket reseller. These companies work with season ticket holders. A schedule is released. We'll say the LA Dodgers schedule is released. 81 home games.

That season ticket holder may know that there are 20 of those games I can't get to. They let the ticket reseller know, will you sell those for me? I'd like to make that money back. Help pay for the season tickets. The analysis says speculative ticketing is selling any ticket that you don't have in hand.

Well, the primary ticketer makes that impossible because, oftentimes they don't release the ticket for transfer until 48 hours prior to the event. So effectively using that definition precludes anybody in the resale market from selling a ticket in advance of that event until it's made available to transfer and they can physically take possession of it.

It would absolutely gut the resale industry and eliminate competition. For this reason, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses or any Members of the public that wish to register a statement of opposition, name and organization.

Mr. Chair, Members Courtney Jensen on behalf of SeatGeek and TickPick in opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Timothy Burr on behalf of Vivid Seats in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Erin Nimala, on behalf of Step Up, also in opposition. Thank you.

Sacramento event producer here, I am in support.

Thank you. Thank you for making it. Okay. Seeing no other Members of the public wishing to comment, we will turn this back to the dais. Would any Members like to have any questions or comments? Ms. McKinner?

Yes, thank you Chair. I would like to thank the author of this Bill because everybody that knows me knows that I love music. I love to go to concerts. Even as a young girl, I used to stand in line.

I was the person that used to go and camp overnight to get tickets back in the day before we can buy them online. But these prices are so ridiculously high. Trying to take my nieces to the same concerts that I used to go to is almost impossible because they're so expensive because of the reseller.

If you can get on Ticketmaster early, I know how to do it. Because of course, instead of standing in line camping overnight, now we have to get up at a certain time and get online and Ticketmaster to get those original, those first sale tickets and those we can afford.

But once you miss that, that window of waiting online, forget about it. You can't afford it anymore. You have tickets that are way up in nosebleeds for 500 bucks. That's just not good for the economy. That's just not good for music lovers.

So I actually want to be a co author on this Bill and I'll be supporting this Bill today. And thank you for bringing it.

Thank you. Senator Ortega.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. And Mr. Zbur.

I want to thank the author for bringing the Bill as well. I mean, I know there's a, a lot of dialogue about sort of who's, you know, which side is, has more merit and which side doesn't.

I mean, I sort of take a look and just take a look at the Bill and obviously I think there's a place for the resellers in the market. But when you look at this Bill, it is basically all common sense consumer protections. There's nothing in here that for me gives me any Pause about, about the Bill.

I mean, if you're selling a ticket, you should have the ticket. If you don't have the ticket, you shouldn't be selling the ticket. I'm nervous about cases where folks are actually pretending that they have tickets and then marketing them online.

And I think I've actually bought some of those in the past where you basically will go on to one of the sites and it says your ticket is in this big General area and there's a big red spot. You have no idea really where the ticket is.

And I suspect that those are tickets that are being sold in this way. So I think this is a consumer protection Bill.

I think in terms of some of the details, I know that the author has consumers in mind at top of mind with this and that any of the details of this Bill I have trust that he will work out with with the opponents and just want to thank you for bringing the Bill.

I think it's an important one. I'll be supporting it today.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur, any other comments or questions? Well, Mr. Bryant, I want to thank you for picking up the mantle on this Bill. It's been, I know a topic that's been multi year in nature, several conversations last year, information hearings and bills before the superior Committee and others as well.

They're trying to get a tackle on this because I'll align my comments with a lot of our colleagues.

At the end of the day, we know practically what is going on out there for those that want to be able to have an opportunity to be able to go to a show and you know, the pilfering of dollars that are otherwise working through a very broken system that you are attempting to be able to correct here.

And I think there's going to be a lot of different ways that you know, we are trying to approach this through various bills and legislation.

But your focus here on tackling speculative tickets is not unlike we are seeing and we have seen in other states as well, including our neighbor to the east in Nevada, one of the entertainment capitals of the world.

So if that is something that can work there, we know that our secondary markets also should be providing an opportunity for that competition for variability in access. Again, finding different ways to be able to help connect a consumer to that opportunity to go see a show.

But the idea that you can do so in advance of the tickets even going on sale at all is uncomfortable. Maybe a nice way to put it, but certainly doesn't seem to pass the common sense test.

It is absolutely frustrating that this Committee's Jurisdiction is really meant to be able to support our industries so that they can be thriving here in California.

And when they are a little bit more removed from the opportunities for profit and revenue on the backs of, you know, sort of a middle agent, that that creates some unfairness for both the consumer. But overall, for the economics of what we're trying to be able to manage here.

And so for, you know, all these reasons and more, you know, we'll be very supportive of this Bill. It sounds like you have some technical issues and continuing conversations that I know you're going to continue to work on, and I'm grateful for that. Like Ms.

McKinner, I feel very strongly about this for consumer protection purposes and would like to be added as a co author as well. Well, and I wish you all the success on this journey because this is the kind of vehicle as well that really helps to tease out that universe of conversation.

But for the merits of what you're trying to accomplish here, I think it would be important safeguards to be able to lock in.

And I would also note as well, lastly, on kind of an economic standpoint, individuals that are trying to be able to go to our shows, to be able to have a great evening out or something, it's not just about going to that event event, they also want to go out to dinner.

They may be a tourist from another area. They want to stay in our hotels. There are other costs on the family's pocketbook that are born to bear here. And when you are, you know, budgeting, maybe, you know, only so much to be able to go see that show.

That's less money that can come back into a local economy for some of these other secondary purposes as well. So appreciate your leadership in trying to fix this issue. And I invite you to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. We'd be happy to have you as co authors. I just want to address a couple things that the opposition said. The idea of a ticketing war only hurts consumers. And I wouldn't call this Bill part of the ticketing war.

In fact, this Bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together and brought Neva and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together. A lot of the other comments were not even germane to the Bill.

If you are a season ticket holder, you have a contractual right to those tickets, which is part of the language of the Bill. Of course, we'll continue to tease out that language to get it right. But this is absolutely consumer focused in every aspect and like my colleague from Inglewood, I also enjoy going to shows.

This comes from kind of the lived experience I have. I first saw J. Cole at the Rialto in Tucson, Arizona during his Forest Hills Drive tour. We bought three tickets. One person couldn't go. We resold the third ticket. The last time I saw J. Cole was at Dreamville Fest in Raleigh, North Carolina, this past weekend.

Flew in just now. If I couldn't have made it, I could have resold my ticket. What I couldn't do is post that ticket for sale before I owned it, right at an outrageous markup, and hope that some poor unsuspecting fan believed that this was a good faith and good place to buy a ticket.

Because my website looks a lot like the original seller, and because I've got words like "almost sold out" written on it, that's wrong, it's unethical. It shouldn't be part of this practice. We've got a number of issues we've got to solve in this ticketing space.

This is the first good step, honest step, that my office plans on taking in this space and grateful for the coalition that's joined us, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has six votes. It will be out and we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, as the room will reset a little bit, we'll invite Our last author, Ms. Irwin, up to the presentation table. If you have any supporting witnesses, they may join you as well.

And when you are ready, you can introduce item number two. This is AB 932. All right, we'll give it a second for the room to clear out.

All right. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's clarifying amendments that were discussed on page four of the analysis. I am pleased to present AB932, which would increase access and equity for girls and youth athletics. Current law per prohibits gender based discrimination by counties and special districts at school and park facilities.

Title IX and California State law prohibits local education agencies from gender based discrimination with their own scholastic teams. However, no existing California law ensures that local education agencies that rent out their spaces to third party sports clubs must do so on an equitable basis with respect to gender. This loophole creates a pathway for continued gender based discrimination.

Many young women participate in club sports because their preferred sport is not offered till middle or high school or because they are hoping to play at the collegiate or professional level. As we Prepare for the 2028 LA Olympics, it is imperative that we ensure gender equity for all our Olympic hopefuls. In California, laws like this protect.

Laws like these provide protections to clubs that face discrimination.

Such as the Davis Youth Football Softball Association that settled with the City of Davis after allegations that this girls softball club was being charged for field use and electricity field electricity fees while boys baseball was accessing their field for a dollar and enjoying shaded dugouts, water fountains and other amenities.

AB932 would close the loophole that allows discrimination against young girls in in club sports. I know firsthand, as does Ms. Quark Silva, the benefits to young women who participate in sports. And we want to make sure that they have equal access to facilities.

Primary witness is David Shapiro, a father and the coach of the Davis Storm Girls Basketball Club. And he can testify to some of the obstacles that he has seen as a coach to over 90 youth athletes. Thank you.

You have up to two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee staff, my name is David Shapiro on behalf of the Davis Store Girls Basketball Club and support as the sponsors of AB932. I'm also the father of two daughters who are multi sport athletes.

And finally, in my last hat, I've known many of you over the years in my in my work here at the Capitol and I now serve as the Chief of Staff of the California Department of Education, which is in support of the Bill, as is Superintendent Thurmond. And I'm excited to be here about this Bill.

It may seem like a small issue that only affects a small subsection of our youth athletes, but it is a huge impact on those athletes across the state.

And I really want to thank Assemblymember Irwin for Being the champion on this issue because it will have a really big impact on the girls in my basketball club and on girls sports teams across California. In many places across the state, school districts that rent out their facilities.

And it's oftentimes gyms that are used for sports like basketball and volleyball have all kinds of different systems for how they determine which teams get access to those facilities. In most cases, they are first come, first serve, which means coaches are getting on a website at midnight and. And whoever has the fastest fingers gets the gym space.

And so our experience in Davis was there were three boys basketball teams. We are the only girls basketball club.

And it just happened to be that last fall at midnight when we all got into the system, one of the boys coaches took all of the gym time except for one day that all of the coaches had agreed that we would share. And so one coach got in there, took all of our gym time.

And it was going to result in our entire season for six teams for 74 athletes being canceled because there was just no other place for us to practice. And so the oddity is these three boys teams, you add up all their players, it's the same number as the players in my girls program.

So all the boys were gonna get the gym time, no girls were gonna get access to gym time. And it's because we have this really strange gap in the law in California where we address this issue for school sponsored sports and we address this issue of gender equity for other facilities being rented out by cities and counties.

But for school facilities being rented out to third party clubs, there is no requirement that it be done on an equitable basis. So this Bill would close that gap. Really would appreciate your support for our youth athletes across the state.

Thank you for the testimony. Are there any Members of the public here to register a position of support? Annie Chow at the California Teachers Association in support. Thank you. Seeing no others, are there any Members of official witnesses in opposition for a statement?

Good morning. Attorney Aaron Friday, President of our duty, lifelong Democrat. Once again, this Legislature is proposing law that violates Title 9, placing all educational institutions in peril of losing much needed federal dollars by requiring educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of sex.

On Friday, the DOE announced the formation of the Title IX Special Investigations Team, dedicated to investigating all states and institutions that are fraudulently accepting federal dollars while violating Title ix. The team comprises of the doe, the OCR and DOJ. This special team has invited Members of the public like me to package up all the evidence and claims.

And we are enthusiastically answering the Call. This Saturday, I went to a rally where Representative Mullen, Becker, Berman, and Papen riled up the crowd with fear mongering that there will be expected losses because of the closure of the Department of Ed.

But not one of them discussed about the $15 billion at risk for the K12 and higher education because California is placing males who believe that there are females above actual females. Just looking at K through 12. If there's a thousand males who play in girls high school sports, those boys will cost California $8 million each annually.

So you will need to explain the perpetuality of the falsity that boys can be girls and that this cost is 8 billion.

The witness could actually please stick to the merits of this Bill.

So the merits of this Bill are related to community sports are based on gender identity and sex? Yes, they are. And if they are allowed to use public schools or any institutions that are receiving federal dollars, they are in violation of Title Ix. So this dais needs to understand that that is for K through 12.

That's $8 billion at risk. And I'm here to warn you that the United States Federal Government is going to come down hard and swift on this.

We can see this is already happening in New York. Pardon me, one concluding sentence.

And I want to thank you for adding the private right of action in this Bill, because for Team Reality, we will use it to file lawsuits on the basis of sex discrimination because you're placing gender identity, again, equal to sex.

Thank you. Are there any other Members of the public wishing to register a position of opposition? We have a second witness. Okay, thank you. I have no witnesses on file, so thank you for your testimony today.

Good morning. My name is Luke Healy, and I'm a detransitioner from the State of California. And a year ago, I made the decision to detransition. It's my belief that it's cool for our states to elevate sex and gender identity to the same position and areas of education and sports.

At 10 years old, I was groomed by predatory men online.

I'm sorry, I asked how this relates to the merits of this. This bill.

The elevation of gender identity and sex to the same status in the bill is, in my belief, it conflates them and makes one irrelevant at some point.

Okay, thank you. I'll ask the author in her clothes to be able to address any discrepancies in the opposition statement. I'm not sure that I see that here today.

Okay. These types of community events, such as sports and educational outlets, they. They placed me in a position to continue to be pushed towards harmful gender interventions at a young age and turn me against my parents and against my community. Again, I'd like to stick to the merits of this bill.

Again, I argue that the merits of the bill relevant to my testimony are the issue of gender identity being placed within the bill. Okay.

That is not within the subject of the bill. But I appreciate your comments here today. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any other Members of the public here wishing to wish to have a statement of opposition?

Good morning. David Bullog on behalf of the convention. Of the erasure of women in sports. David Bullog here on behalf of the prevention of the erasure of women in sports and the organization Sex is real and gender is Imaginary. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Why does the bill say sex and gender over and over again as if they're two different things? Name an organization, please. My name is Meg Madden, a Raider. Mark. I represent cause Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law. And women are real. We support equal rights on the basis.

Of sex gender ideology written into supposed sex discrimination.

Thank you for your time and seeing no others. Okay, we don't get to. We don't get a second bite of the apple. Ms. Friday, seeing no other Members of the public here wishing to have a statement of opposition, we'll turn this back to Member comments or questions. Motion by Ms. Ortega, seconded by Ms. Kenner.

And do you have. Yeah, I have a statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill. You know, I had a son that played basketball, local basketball, Little League Sports. And it's a shame when we have like the boys can play and the girls can't play. And so I thank you for bringing this bill so that we can have equity.

I was, I couldn't wait to see the professional women play professional basketball. I bought season tickets the first year of the Sparks and so I support girls sports. I think this is a great bill. I'll ask to be a co author of this bill and I thank you and I'll be supporting that today.

Thank you. Any other Members? Mr. Zbur?

I think it's a great bill as. Well, and I'd love to be a collector. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members wish to have questions or comments? Mr. Wyn, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward as well. I see it, you know, very, you know, acutely as what you are trying to accomplish here.

I think that your, your witness really summarized a, a key example That I think a lot of our local education agencies are experiencing as well. We need to have that equal access for all genders to be able to have their sports opportunities as well.

And I know that you're trying to be able to close that gap with this effort here and appreciate, you know, you found something here that I know is already law for other kinds of agencies, but, you know, we sort of have missed that for our school facilities as well. Invite you to close.

Yeah. And just clarification for school facilities, they. They already have the law for their own students, just not for the class. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, that right now is at 7...6-0. We will hold the roll open for absent Members, but it is sufficient to pass.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. With that, we're going to ask all absent Members to return to the Committee room so that we can go ahead and go down our roll call for those here so we can get you on with your day. We'll probably take two passes through this.

We'll go back to the top of the file for item number one. The chair does not have a recommendation on this Bill, and I wanted to see if there was any entertainment for a motion. Is there a motion on item number one? Okay.

Seeing no motion at this time, the Bill will be held for lack of a motion. Is there item number two. This is. We just handled item number two. Y'all voted on it. So we'll go forward to item number three. AB 1349. Madam Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

And currently that role is 7-0. And Mr. Gonzalez, you'll be in not voting on 1349. Okay, thank you. So that Bill is out on a 7 to 0 vote with two Members not voting. Thank you all for being here. We will hold the roll open for just a minute.

There was no motion. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, this time we'll be closing the roll. So item number two, AB932, passes out a Committee with a 6 to 0 vote with three Members not voting. With that, we are adjourn.