Claire Fenn grew up listening to Taylor Swift’s music, so when Taylor Swift announced her latest tour, she jumped at the chance to buy a ticket.

But like many heartbroken Swift fans, Fenn didn’t get a ticket. After being put on the Ticketmaster pre-sale waiting list in November, the 21-year-old embarked on the seemingly “impossible” feat of finding concert tickets she could afford.

She browsed sites like TickPick and SeatGeek that resell tickets, but the prices have gone up to $26,000. She took to Twitter for help, tweeting that she was looking for tickets to Swift’s show in Los Angeles in August. The college girl estimates she spent 50 hours on this hunt. Her feelings of disappointment are now familiar to her.

“I’ve wanted to see her live for a really long time, but the demand is so high that I’m afraid I’ll never get the chance again,” Feng, who lives in Arizona, said. rice field. “I feel like if I don’t challenge myself, my show may never come to fruition,” she said.

The failure to sell Swift’s Elras Tour fueled criticism from federal and state politicians over Ticketmaster’s dominance in the live music industry.

Lawmakers in California are challenging the entertainment giants this year with legislation aimed at helping consumers like Fenn. But it is doubtful whether their proposal will succeed. After a stiff backlash from Ticketmaster, lawmakers are already moving to water down bills meant to ease Ticketmaster’s monopoly on ticket sales. Ticketmaster is lobbying for its own bill aimed at cracking down on scalpers.

Further complicating the debate over how to make ticket prices affordable is that the debate is intertwined with long-running entertainment. industry brawl. The battle puts primary ticket providers like Ticketmaster, who also have a way for fans to resell their tickets, against secondary ticket resellers like StubHub. Both firms fear lawmakers are giving rivals an advantage and are lobbying to maintain an edge.

“Monopolies don’t care about consumers. Monopolies are interested in strengthening their monopoly control over the market,” said the California Consumers Federation, which is concerned about Ticketmaster’s power. Executive Director Robert Herrell said. “And in the ticketing industry, we have a monopoly.”

The group worked with Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) to transparent ticket bill That would also prevent major ticket providers like Ticketmaster from restricting ticket resale. Consumer advocacy groups say allowing people to transfer tickets to other sites is a way to counter the dominance of Ticketmaster, whose parent company Live Nation Entertainment controls 70% of the ticket sales and live events market. argue that it is possible.

Live Nation Entertainment opposed the bill, saying it benefits resellers and brokers, not artists. Instead, the company said in a statement released during its analysis of the bill that California would “protect the rights of artists to control resale and prohibit anti-consumer and deceptive ticket sales practices.” He said they should consider controlling costs.

Ticketmaster denies it’s exclusive.

“The reason this trope about the Ticketmaster monopoly is always talked about is to distract attention from the question of how scalpers get these resale market tickets. ,” Dan Wall, executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs at Live Nation Entertainment, said in an interview.

Friedman removed the resale clause, realizing that his bill might not pass due to opposition from Ticketmaster and others.

“Unfortunately, Ticketmaster and other companies have huge lobbying departments, so the bill has really been cut,” she said.

Congressional Bill No. 8 now focuses on fees added to ticket sales that are hidden until just before the purchaser checks out. This will require ticket sellers to include an upfront fee in the full price of the ticket. Ticketmaster, SeatGeek, and others agreed to offer rates upfront in June, but Friedman says he still needs an invoice.

“This is something that needs to be regulated. At least it’s vulgar. At worst, you could say it’s a rip-off. That’s what I hear from consumers,” Friedman said. “We are pleased that industry has seen the potential of regulation and is willing to come to the negotiating table, but if the state had not moved to regulate, industry would inevitably have done so. I have no illusions.”

Congress passed the bill in May and it is currently being considered in the Senate.

Friedman also worked with Senator Scott Wilk (R, Saugus) on a bill that would bar major ticket companies like Ticketmaster from including exclusivity clauses in contracts with California entertainment venues.

SB829 The bill passed the Senate unanimously, but Wilk said amidst behind-closed-door lobbying that he expected the bill to be defeated in Congress. Ticketmaster has not spoken publicly about the bill, but venue managers opposed the bill, telling lawmakers that exclusive partnerships with ticket sellers would better ensure ticket validity. said it does.

“It’s going to be all-out war now that Congress has settled it,” Wilk said.

Ticketmaster backs bills worldwide multiple states We are targeting resellers and scalpers.

Supports Live Nation Entertainment, AXS, Los Angeles Rams, National Football League, Coalition of Music Artists and more Senate Bill 785, any law that requires a ticket seller or reseller to have “ownership, ownership or contractual right” to list, sell or sell tickets. Resellers and ticket marketplaces are also required to disclose the original ticket face value. Live Nation Entertainment and AXS say AB 8 is not required because the bill also requires an upfront fee. In the first three months of this year, Live Nation Entertainment spent $45,000 lobbying for AB 8 and SB 785, according to Office of the Secretary of State data.

Senator Anna Caballero (Salinas Democrat) introduced SB 785. She was not available for an interview, but said in her earlier article: statement It said the bill was intended to “regulate the scalping practices that currently plague the ticketing entertainment industry.” The bill passed the Senate unanimously and is now before Congress.

Even if the governor of California signed the bill into law, it’s not clear if it would make it easier for people to buy tickets to live events at affordable prices.

Economist Carolyn Sloan said price transparency alone “cannot satisfy the public’s much-needed reassurance from the hassles going on in the world of live ticket sales.” The central issue, she said, is dealing with the lack of competition in the live music industry.

While serving as an assistant professor of economics at the University of California, Riverside, Sloan taught a course on “loconomics.” This is a term used by the late economist Alan Kruger to describe economics through the lens of the music industry. From questions about how to pay artists fairly to antitrust laws, lawmakers can also use the music industry to discuss topics that may seem boring at first glance but affect people’s daily lives. increase. It’s also a way for politicians to make a name for themselves, especially among younger voters who are fans of artists like Swift.

“Music has a tremendous impact on policy in terms of how it can influence social and political norms,” ​​Sloan said. “For these reasons, this is an important industry to watch.”

When fan demand for tickets exceeds supply, prices go up. But other factors, such as the use of bots to automatically look up and buy tickets, are also affecting supply, she said. Venues, artists and promoters can also withhold ticket purchases from the public.and blog postTicketmaster said demand for Swift tickets hit a record on Nov. 15, overwhelmed by bots and humans, and the company received 3.5 billion system requests the same day, four times its previous peak. Announced.

A Swift fan, Fenn still hopes to attend the show in Los Angeles in August.

“It’s the first time I’ve had to fight for tickets like this,” she said.

As the clock ticks down, Fenn may be heading for a harsh summer.