California lawmakers have shelved a closely watched bill that would have capped the resale price of concert tickets, delivering a major victory to StubHub and other secondary ticketing companies following one of the most expensive lobbying campaigns of the current legislative session.

Assembly Bill 1720 failed to advance out of the California Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, effectively ending the measure’s chances of becoming law this year. Sources say the California AG Rob Bonta was skeptical of the bill and worried about the possible impact it could have had on the penalty phase of the recent state-led antitrust case against Live Nation and even disagreed with a recent cost estimate for enforcing the bill, creating a discrepancy with the state Senate.

The bill, introduced in February by Assemblymember Matt Haney, initially proposed limiting the resale price of a concert ticket to no more than 10% above its original price. Supporters argued the cap would reduce the financial incentive for professional scalpers to acquire large numbers of tickets and relist them at enormous markups.

But AB 1720 faced fierce resistance from the secondary ticketing industry, led by StubHub. According to lobbying disclosures reported by Ethan Millman at The Hollywood Reporter, StubHub spent a record $3.4 million lobbying California officials this year, including $2.6 million during the most recent quarter.

The spending campaign demonstrated both the financial stakes surrounding ticket resale regulation and the political difficulty of passing even a significantly narrowed version of the proposal.

In an effort to secure enough support for passage, lawmakers substantially weakened AB 1720 before it reached the Senate.

The original version would have applied broadly to concert tickets sold in California. An amendment later limited the price cap to events held at venues with capacities of 3,000 people or fewer.

That change excluded arenas, stadiums and most major amphitheaters—the venues where tickets for superstar tours frequently attract the highest resale prices. It also meant the bill would have done little to address the eye-popping markups that typically generate national headlines.

Even in its reduced form, however, AB 1720 represented a significant threat to the business model of secondary marketplaces. A 10% ceiling would have sharply limited the potential profits available to brokers selling tickets for high-demand shows at clubs, theaters and other independent venues.

StubHub and its allies have consistently argued that price caps interfere with a functioning marketplace and could drive resale activity toward unregulated or less secure platforms. The company has said that consumer choice, flexibility and access are better ways to serve fans.

A StubHub representative did not respond to THR’s request for comment following the bill’s failure.

AB 1720 created an unusual political coalition that brought Live Nation together with independent venues, talent agencies and artist representatives.

The bill was supported by Live Nation, the National Independent Venue Association, the Music Artists Coalition and the National Independent Talent Organization. Those groups argued that unrestricted resale allows brokers to extract money from fans without sharing that revenue with the artists, venues and promoters responsible for producing the event.

The proposal also reflected a growing effort by Live Nation to position itself as an advocate for tougher regulation of ticket resale. The concert giant has increasingly called for national rules addressing speculative ticket listings, deceptive websites, ticket-buying bots and excessive resale markups.

Critics of Live Nation have questioned whether the company’s support for resale restrictions is entirely altruistic, given that Ticketmaster operates its own resale marketplace and would benefit if more ticket transactions remained within its controlled ecosystem. But on AB 1720, Live Nation’s position placed it alongside many independent music businesses that have long complained about scalpers profiting from deliberately underpriced tickets.

For smaller venues, the bill also offered protection for concerts whose tickets are kept affordable by design. When those tickets are immediately relisted for several times their original price, artists and venues often absorb the resulting fan backlash even though they receive none of the additional revenue.

Despite the defeat, Haney said he would continue working with artists, venues and fans on legislation addressing ticket resale.

“This isn’t a fringe idea, and it isn’t partisan,” Haney said in a statement published by THR, pointing to support for resale reform from artists across the political and musical spectrum, including Kid Rock and Noah Kahan.

Haney said AB 1720 would have reduced the incentive for predatory resale while preserving the ability of ordinary fans to recover their money when they can no longer attend an event.

That distinction has become central to the resale debate. Supporters of price caps generally say fans should be allowed to transfer or resell tickets they cannot use. Their target is not occasional fan-to-fan resale, but businesses and professional brokers that acquire inventory for the express purpose of selling it at a higher price.

Opponents counter that determining which sellers are ordinary fans and which are professional brokers can be difficult. They also argue that a ticket’s market value may ultimately be higher—or lower—than the price initially chosen by an artist or promoter.

California’s decision does not end the larger movement toward ticket resale regulation.

As THR and Music Ally noted in their reports on AB 1720’s defeat, resale restrictions have gained traction in other jurisdictions. Maine, Vermont and Washington, D.C., have approved versions of ticket resale caps, while Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey recently included a resale price-cap proposal in a supplemental spending bill.

The varying state approaches could create a complicated patchwork of ticketing regulations, particularly for national platforms and touring artists whose events cross multiple jurisdictions. That may eventually intensify pressure on Congress to establish a federal standard governing resale prices, ticket transfers, speculative listings and marketplace disclosures.

For now, the collapse of AB 1720 illustrates how difficult it will be to pass meaningful ticket resale restrictions in a major entertainment market. The proposal was narrowed to smaller venues, backed by powerful industry organizations and promoted as a consumer-protection measure.

It still could not overcome a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign.

Haney and the bill’s supporters are likely to try again. But AB 1720’s demise sends an unmistakable message to lawmakers in California and elsewhere: the secondary ticketing industry is prepared to spend heavily to protect the unrestricted resale market—and even limited price caps will face a formidable fight.