AB 2113 adds a new Part 1.5 to Division 9 of the California Public Utilities Code to regulate unmanned aircraft systems around ticketed entertainment events. It defines what counts as a ticketed event and makes unauthorized drone operations in the event’s immediate airspace unlawful, while listing narrow exceptions.
The bill is aimed at reducing safety and privacy risks at large live events and gives local authorities a clear statutory tool to address unauthorized drone activity. That makes it immediately relevant to venue operators, event promoters, local police, and businesses that use drones for photography, inspection, or broadcasting.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines “ticketed entertainment event” and an “unmanned aircraft system,” creates a statutory prohibition on operating a UAS within a specified proximity of such events, enumerates five limited exceptions, and makes violations infractions carrying a monetary fine. It also adds these provisions as Part 1.5 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include ticketed event venues and promoters (those who control access through gates or barriers), hobbyist and commercial drone operators, local law enforcement that will enforce the ban, and utility and property-owner drone operations that may rely on specified exemptions.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a state-level rule that complements federal aviation rules by giving California venues and local police a statutory basis to stop or cite unauthorized UAS activity during gated events. It also introduces precise thresholds and exemptions practitioners must track when planning events or drone operations near venues.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2113 inserts a discrete regulatory regime into the Public Utilities Code targeting drones near pay-to-enter live events. It opens with legislative findings stressing risks posed by unmanned aircraft to crowded venues and cites high-profile upcoming events as context.
The operative text then supplies working definitions that determine who and what the law reaches.
The bill’s definitions matter: a ticketed entertainment event is tied to controlled access (gated entries or barriers) and the issuance of a revocable license by the owner, operator, or lessee. The bill’s UAS definition tracks common characteristics—pilotless, aerodynamically lifted, remotely piloted or autonomous systems—and explicitly excludes satellites.
These definitional choices set the statutory perimeter for enforcement and exemptions.The main prohibition is location-based: operating a UAS within the defined proximity of, or above, a ticketed event is unlawful unless a listed exception applies. The exceptions cover operations with consent from a person with legal authority over the event, operations that are federally authorized and compliant with federal rules, employees of the property acting on official business, utility company employees doing official work, and private property owners operating above their own property under restrictive conditions (noncommercial, not used for broadcasting or interfering with the event).
The bill makes violations infractions and sets a fixed fine per violation.Practically, enforcement will fall to local authorities. The bill references coordination among federal, state, and local bodies in its findings but does not create new FAA–state procedural tools; it leans on existing federal authorization pathways as one of the exceptions.
The text also contains a fiscal clause stating the act does not trigger state reimbursement obligations because it creates an infraction. For practitioners, the bill creates clear, event‑specific constraints on drone use and a predictable civil penalty scheme, while leaving technological and interagency implementation details to be worked out at the operational level.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Part 1.5 (Sections 21750–21752) to Division 9 of the California Public Utilities Code, establishing a new state regulatory framework for UAS at ticketed events.
It defines a “ticketed entertainment event” as a gated music, sporting, or performing arts event that requires a revocable license issued by the property owner, operator, or lessee.
AB 2113 makes it unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system within 400 feet of, or above, a ticketed entertainment event.
The statute lists five exceptions — consent from someone with legal authority over the event; operations authorized and compliant with federal rules; property employees conducting official business; utility employees conducting official business; and private property owners operating above their own property subject to narrow limits — and treats violations as infractions with a $500 fine per violation.
The bill includes a provision declaring no state reimbursement is required because it creates a new infraction, leaving enforcement funding and operational costs to local agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature took action
This opening section compiles the Legislature’s rationale: crowd safety risks, the limits of federal response, and the economic importance of large outdoor events in California. It lists major events (e.g., Olympics, World Cup, large festivals) to justify the law’s scope. While not legally operative, these findings signal legislative intent and will shape how courts and agencies interpret purpose and narrowness when disputes arise.
Who and what the law covers
Section 21750 supplies two critical definitions. The “ticketed entertainment event” definition requires controlled access (gates or barriers) and a revocable license from a controlling party, which limits coverage to events where the organizer can reasonably enforce exclusion. The UAS definition borrows technical elements—pilotless, aerodynamic lift, remote or autonomous control—and excludes satellites. These choices determine whether a particular gathering or aerial device falls inside the statute and therefore influence contracting, signage, and event security planning.
Prohibited conduct, five narrow exceptions, and fines
This is the operative text: it bars operation of a UAS within 400 feet of, or above, a ticketed entertainment event, subject to five explicit exceptions. The exceptions are written broadly enough to include federal-authorized flights and venue employees, but the private property owner exception is tightly qualified — noncommercial use and prohibitions on broadcasting or otherwise interfering with the event. The violation is classified as an infraction with a $500 fine per occurrence; the framing as an infraction rather than a misdemeanor reduces criminal exposure but creates a recurring civil enforcement exposure for repeat operators.
No state reimbursement required
The final section invokes constitutional provisions to state that the law does not trigger an obligation for the state to reimburse local governments, reasoning that costs arise solely from creating a new infraction. That language matters because it makes it less likely the state will appropriate funds for enforcement tools or training, putting the operational and financial burden for detection, interdiction, and prosecution on local agencies and venues.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Event promoters and venue operators — The statute gives them a legal basis to demand or negotiate operator consent, require security measures, and request local enforcement to stop unauthorized drone operations that threaten safety, privacy, or broadcast rights.
- Attendees and performers — The prohibition reduces the risk of injury from dropped or uncontrolled UAS and limits unauthorized aerial photography and surveillance inside controlled-access events, enhancing safety and privacy.
- Local law enforcement agencies — The bill provides a state statute criminalizing specific drone intrusions at events, creating a clear cause of action to detain operators or issue fines rather than relying solely on federal aviation processes.
- Private insurers and venue security providers — Clear statutory prohibitions lower ambiguity when underwriting event liability and may reduce exposure or help justify investments in counter-UAS measures.
- Event-adjacent businesses (e.g., concessions, broadcast partners) — Reduced risk of disruption from unauthorized air operations helps protect commercial activities tied to the event experience.
Who Bears the Cost
- Drone operators (hobbyist and commercial) — Operators face a new spatial restriction near gated events, with a $500 infraction risk per violation and uncertainty about how proximity will be measured and enforced.
- Local law enforcement agencies and municipalities — Detection, attribution, interdiction, and case-processing costs fall to local actors, who may need to invest in technology, training, and coordination without dedicated state funding.
- Venue operators and promoters — They may incur additional compliance and coordination costs (liaising with law enforcement, updating ticketing and signage, contracting for authorized aerial services) to ensure exempted operations are managed lawfully.
- Commercial broadcasters and media producers — Even where an owner consents, the private-property exception prohibits certain commercial recording uses unless separately authorized, possibly complicating media plans and licensing.
- Legal and regulatory teams for businesses using drones — Companies will need to update operational policies, geofencing rules, and permitting processes to avoid exposure and to document consent where applicable.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—protecting large-event safety and giving local actors a responsive enforcement tool—against the reality that airspace regulation is primarily federal and that enforcement imposes real practical and fiscal burdens on local agencies and operators; the law solves the local-safety gap but risks preemption disputes and uneven, resource-driven enforcement.
The bill creates a localized, event-focused prohibition without prescribing the technological or procedural means to detect or stop drones. That leaves significant implementation questions: how to establish the 400‑foot perimeter on the ground, how to attribute flights to specific operators, and whether local police can practically intercept airborne devices without risking greater harm.
The fiscal clause explicitly declines to create a state reimbursement obligation, meaning municipalities will likely finance detection and enforcement out of existing budgets or rely on venue-funded security — a mismatch that could lead to uneven enforcement across jurisdictions.
A central legal ambiguity is federal preemption. The statute carves out operations that are ‘‘authorized by federal regulations’’ as an exception, but it simultaneously asserts a state prohibition in navigable airspace, an area where the FAA traditionally holds primacy.
That creates the potential for disputes over whether state-level proximity restrictions conflict with federal airspace authority, particularly for commercial operators who hold FAA waivers or certificates. Finally, the private-property exception contains sharp limits (no commercial broadcasting, no interference) that will produce gray-area enforcement questions — for instance, whether a photographer contracted by a venue is ‘‘commercial’’ for purposes of the exception, and who bears burden of proving compliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.