California is on the verge of creating a new state-level no-fly zone around the venues where much of American pop culture happens. AB 2113, which bars unauthorized drone flights within 400 feet of large outdoor ticketed entertainment events and amusement parks, was enrolled by the legislature on September 1 and now sits on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk awaiting a signature or veto.

The bill cleared both chambers without a single dissenting vote — a rare show of unanimity in Sacramento — but that political consensus hasn't settled a thornier legal question: can a state government regulate airspace that the Federal Aviation Administration itself has left unrestricted? Aviation attorneys are already lining up on both sides of that fight, and the answer could determine whether AB 2113 becomes a durable template for other states or a short-lived law struck down in federal court.

What the Bill Actually Does

AB 2113, formally titled "Aviation: unmanned aircraft systems: ticketed entertainment events and amusement parks," was introduced on February 18, 2026 by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Los Angeles-area Democrat. According to the official bill text on the California Legislative Information website, it creates a $500 infraction for operating an unmanned aircraft within 400 feet of an outdoor ticketed entertainment event or an amusement park (classified under NAICS code 713110) with a capacity of 1,000 people or more, absent authorization.

The restriction is not absolute. The bill carves out exemptions for:

  • Venue operators and their employees conducting official business
  • Utility and transportation agency employees operating in the course of their duties
  • Operators with FAA commercial authorization
  • Emergency personnel

In practice, that means a news helicopter, a utility inspection drone, or an FAA-licensed commercial drone operator would not run afoul of the law, and neither would a venue's own drone operators handling official business. The people the bill targets are hobbyist or unauthorized operators flying over — or near — packed stadiums, amphitheaters, and amusement parks without anyone's permission.

How It Moved Through Sacramento

The bill's path through the legislature was fast and lopsided. The Senate passed it 39-0 on August 26, 2026, and the Assembly followed with a 76-0 concurrence vote the next day, August 27. It was enrolled September 1, sending it to the governor.

Early reporting from Politico's California Playbook in July traced McKinnor's push to a specific enforcement episode: the Transportation Security Administration had seized more than 300 drones for violating FAA airspace restrictions around 2026 FIFA World Cup stadiums and fan events in California that summer, an operation the Department of Homeland Security called "the most comprehensive airspace security and drone mitigation effort in U.S. history." McKinnor framed the World Cup crackdown as a preview of a bigger challenge still to come, telling Politico that officials "seized them over FIFA" but that "the Olympics is going to be really, way bigger." DroneLife's coverage on the day of enrollment likewise noted that the bill's supporters point to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics and Super Bowl LX as the events motivating the law, framing AB 2113 as a piece of security infrastructure for a state about to host a run of the biggest gatherings in American sports and entertainment.

The Preemption Question Nobody Has Answered

The FAA has long asserted near-total authority over U.S. airspace, including the airspace low enough for most consumer and commercial drones to occupy. That authority is the crux of the objection raised by Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, who told DroneLife that AB 2113 "expressly regulates navigable airspace where the FAA has not imposed its own restriction." If the FAA hasn't drawn a line at 400 feet around concert venues, the argument goes, California arguably can't draw one either — federal aviation law is generally understood to preempt state and local attempts to regulate where aircraft, including drones, may fly. Osterreicher added that the law could sweep up journalists too: a photographer "operating lawfully under [FAA] Part 107 could be prohibited from using a drone for newsgathering simply because the state has declared that otherwise permissible airspace off limits."

Katie Inman, a partner at Holland & Knight who specializes in federal transportation and uncrewed-aircraft law, offered a more cautious read: the FAA-preemption question here is legally unsettled. She told DroneLife that the answer "comes down to the purpose of the statute" — courts and federal regulators have generally allowed states to police conduct like trespassing, voyeurism, or capturing images of prisons and critical infrastructure, even when a drone is involved, without that counting as impermissible airspace regulation. AB 2113's defenders would likely argue it fits that category: a public-safety and crowd-control measure tied to ticketed events, not a freestanding claim to control airspace.

Neither side has a definitive precedent to point to, which is exactly why attorneys like Inman are flagging this as an open question rather than a settled one. If Newsom signs the bill and it takes effect, a legal challenge testing that boundary would not be surprising.

Why It Matters

AB 2113 lands after a summer in which the 2026 FIFA World Cup tested California's stadium security — prompting the TSA to seize more than 300 unauthorized drones around World Cup venues, according to Politico's reporting — and ahead of Super Bowl LX and the 2028 Olympics, all while drone incidents at stadiums and concerts have become a recurring headache nationally. A 400-foot buffer with a modest $500 fine is a relatively light-touch tool, but it gives venue operators and law enforcement a concrete statute to point to instead of relying solely on federal enforcement, which can be slow or jurisdictionally murky when it comes to unauthorized drone flights over crowds.

For the drone industry, the bill is a bellwether. If California — a state that regularly sets national policy trends — successfully regulates drone activity near entertainment venues without being preempted, expect other states hosting major events to draft similar bills. If a court instead finds AB 2113 preempted by federal aviation law, it would reinforce the FAA's primacy over even seemingly local, safety-driven drone restrictions and push states toward alternative approaches, such as leaning harder on trespassing or public-safety statutes that don't touch airspace directly. Either outcome will shape how commercial operators, hobbyists, and venue security plan for the next wave of stadium and festival-scale events in the state.

Sources