By California Black Media Staff

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Sept. 27 authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights) that strengthens consumer protections for Californians purchasing tickets to concerts, sporting events and other live entertainment.

Assembly Bill 1349 expands state regulation of original ticket sellers, resellers and online resale marketplaces. The law targets deceptive sales practices, ticket-buying software and speculative listings — tickets advertised for sale by sellers who do not possess them or have authorization to sell them.

“Buying a ticket shouldn’t come with hidden risks or unfair practices,” Newsom wrote on social media after signing the measure.

Under AB 1349, ticket sellers are prohibited from listing tickets before they have been officially released unless they have authorization or a legally enforceable right to receive them. Online marketplaces must also take reasonable steps to prevent speculative ticket sales on their platforms.

The law prohibits sellers from using bots, multiple accounts, email addresses or internet protocol addresses to circumvent ticket limits, presale restrictions, electronic queues and other controls. It also bans websites and advertisements designed to mislead buyers into believing they are purchasing tickets from an authorized seller, venue or event organizer.

Sellers who violate certain provisions and fail to provide a promised ticket may be held liable for twice the ticket’s contracted price. Buyers may also recover nonrefundable expenses incurred while attempting to attend an event, along with reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

Pastor Tecoy Porter Sr., president of the National Action Network’s Sacramento chapter, said the law establishes needed accountability.

“Buying a ticket to a concert or show shouldn’t mean entering a marketplace where the rules are stacked against you. This year, we worked with a coalition of consumers, civil rights advocates, community groups, and businesses to make AB 1349 stronger. Consumers deserve enforceable rules that protect them. We thank Assemblymember Bryan for his leadership, and we will keep working to make ticketing fair for every Californian.”

Jose L. Barrera, national vice president for the Far West Region of the League of United Latin American Citizens, also praised the measure.

“Californian families deserve certain protections when they buy tickets. Assemblymember Bryan listened to communities across California and delivered a bill that puts fans first. We thank him and Governor Newsom for making it law.”

By Tanya Dennis

Yesterday, more than 10 Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies arrived to take possession of Zakiya Jendayi’s home on behalf of a court-appointed administrator. Jendayi was arrested at the courthouse and transported to Santa Rita Jail around the same time.

Jendayi, who has been embroiled in a probate court battle to retain the inheritance bestowed on her by a longtime friend and colleague who passed away in 2013, had received a notice of eviction last month.

With help from neighbors, friends and clergy, she was able to fend off the eviction from 3614 Randolph Ave. in Oakland and even obtained a reprieve when her bid to file bankruptcy was approved by a county court.

But Philip Campbell, the court-appointed administrator, had already placed Jendayi’s home in his name in October 2025.

On Tuesday, deputies followed Jendayi when she left her residence of 13 years to go to the Appellate Court to file documents in her case. Deputies arrested her upon arrival and transported her to Santa Rita jail.

Undersheriff April Luckett-Fahini said Jendayi was arrested for “safety reasons.” At this time, it is unknown what charges were used for the arrest.

In Jendayi’s absence, Campbell came to her residence accompanied by deputies, had the property taped off with yellow crime tape, and had the locks changed.

 Afterward, Campbell requested a police escort to his car amid several angry neighbors who had been advocating that officials pause the eviction pending Jendayi’s appeal.

“Zakiya Jendayi is a respected Black elder in our community,” said Alameda County Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas, who has been working with Jendayi to prevent her eviction. “It’s outrageous that she was arrested.  There needs to be more justice and equity in our probate system.” 

Black voters have been among the Democratic Party’s most dependable supporters for generations. But loyalty and trust are not the same thing.

With less than a month to go before the midterm elections, Black voters and political strategists say years of inconsistent engagement and unmet expectations have left some voters questioning whether the party has earned their continued support. The challenge now is bigger than winning votes. It’s convincing distrustful voters that staying politically engaged is worth it.

Communications strategist Ashley Etienne argues that Democrats have spent years taking one of their most reliable voting blocs for granted, creating a widening trust gap that threatens the party’s long-term prospects in Texas and nationally.

“Trust is the currency of persuasion,” she said. “We’re seeing distrust at an all-time high, especially with Black voters … distrust of the media, institutions, the Democratic Party, self-agreement. Campaigns don’t lose because they fail to talk to voters. They lose because they fail to listen.”

Etienne, who served as a senior adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, said repairing that relationship requires something considerably more difficult than another campaign advertisement. It requires listening.

Black support remains strong, but not absolute

Recent polling suggests Democrats continue to hold a substantial advantage among Black voters heading into November, but that support isn’t universal.

A July 2026 Pew Research Center survey found 68% of Black registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate for U.S. House in their district, compared with 8% who favored the Republican. Another 25% said they were either unsure or would support another candidate.

That uncertainty follows some erosion in Democratic support among Black voters in the 2024 presidential election. A Pew analysis of validated voters found 83% of Black voters supported Kamala Harris in 2024, compared with 92% who supported Joe Biden in 2020.

Pew found that shift was driven less by individual voters switching from one party to another than by differences in who turned out to vote.

The findings don’t suggest Black voters have abandoned Democrats. They do raise questions about whether longstanding party loyalty is enough to guarantee participation.

“We’ve been making that same argument decade after decade,” Etienne said. “Those are becoming less persuasive arguments.”

Why is trust disappearing?

The distrust isn’t necessarily about one candidate or one election. For some Black voters, frustration comes from feeling heavily courted during election season without seeing enough progress afterward on the issues affecting their daily lives.

Housing costs remain a concern. So do education, economic opportunity, neighborhood investment, and the cost of everyday necessities.

That creates a difficult dynamic for campaigns: Asking voters to participate in a political system that some believe has not delivered enough for them.

It also raises a separate question. What happens when frustration with political parties becomes disengagement from the political process altogether?

What happens when voters stay home?

The answer can become particularly consequential in local elections, where races can be decided by hundreds of votes rather than thousands.

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Traci Gibson has pointed to several 2024 judicial races decided by narrow margins. District judge candidate Elaine Palmer lost by 304 votes, while Jeralynn Manor lost by 647 votes.

Gibson also warned about voters who begin Harris County’s lengthy ballot but don’t finish it.

“If you go into these polls and you vote for the first five people and then you leave, that’s how we get Elaine Palmer losing by about 300 votes,” Gibson said.

The larger issue extends beyond any candidate or political party. Judges are elected. School boards make decisions affecting students and families. City and county officials determine how public dollars are spent. State lawmakers decide which bills become state law.

Those decisions are made regardless of how many eligible voters participate.

For voters distrustful of political parties or government institutions, political participation also doesn’t have to mean unquestioning loyalty to either party.

Voters can research candidates individually, compare their positions, attend or watch candidate forums and examine an incumbent’s record against previous campaign promises. They can also learn what the often-overlooked offices farther down the ballot actually control.

In that sense, distrust can become a reason for greater scrutiny rather than disengagement.

Candidates have work to do, too

Responsibility for rebuilding participation doesn’t fall solely on voters.

At a recent Third Ward town hall hosted by state Rep. Jolanda “Jo” Jones, Harris County Precinct 7 Constable James “Smokie” Phillips and Houston Black American Democrats, voters and political strategists called for more sustained campaign engagement.

“Investment drives outcomes. If you don’t invest in it, it doesn’t work,” Etienne said.

She argued that campaigns spend heavily on polling, consultants and advertising while directing too little money toward Black-led political infrastructure and organizations with established relationships in Black communities.

Shamier Bouie, chair of Houston Black American Democrats, said organizing cannot begin a few months before Election Day.

“It’s all about year-round organizing, and increased investment in Black voter outreach … more funding for Black-led organizations that have relationships, infrastructure, and experience in effectively engaging Black communities,” Bouie said.

The question of investment also surfaced in July when Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico pledged $25 million toward Black voter outreach. Some voters wanted specifics about where and how that money would be spent.

“We still need our kids, we still need our schools equitably funded,” said Augie Cahee, vice president of marketing web delivery at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “So, we want to know what you’re going to do with the money. Don’t stand up and tell me $25 million and you don’t have a plan.”

The exchange illustrated the larger trust problem: Voters aren’t simply asking candidates to talk to them. They want to know what happens after the conversation.

From distrust to accountability

Karla West, a precinct chair for downtown’s Precinct 16, said responsibility ultimately belongs on both sides.

“We fell asleep at the wheel,” West said of voter turnout.

But she also challenged political leaders.

“The Democratic Party did not say what they would do for you,” West said. “We haven’t heard a plan for years. I’m sick of it. We have to have strategies, we have to have plans, we have to have a mechanism in place for people to feel they are heard.”

Defender Reporter Tannistha Sinha contributed to this report.

Based on reporting by Houston Defender.

An estimated 55,000 consumers will benefit from a $694 million class-action settlement against a predatory auto lender reached by attorneys general in 40 states and the District of Columbia.

The settlement announced on Sept. 18 with Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC), one of the nation’s largest subprime auto lenders, will provide the following financial relief for affected consumers:

• $630 million in debt relief for consumers — $388 million to consumers whose cars have been repossessed; the remaining $246 million for those whose vehicles have not been repossessed and will now keep their autos.
• $60 million in restitution to thousands of additional consumers who were misled and lost their cars within months of taking out their loans.
• $15.5 million in reimbursement to each state office that comprised the multistate working group, and the National Association of Attorneys General.

“CAC preyed on consumers in New York and across the nation with false promises of affordable loans, only to exploit them with outrageous interest rates that ruined their credit and cost them their cars,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the multi-state effort. “While their customers struggled to make payments, CAC made millions. By continuing our case to hold CAC accountable, we secured hundreds of millions of dollars in debt relief and restitution for all those who were taken advantage of by their schemes.”

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, alleged that CAC projected, down to the penny, how much money it could extract from borrowers through loan payments, late fees, repossession and auction, debt collection, and wage garnishment, without considering a consumer’s ability to repay their loan, according to James. CAC then offered to split the projected collections with its affiliated dealers.

Low-income borrowers with either low credit scores or little credit history were routinely pushed into purchasing vehicles that were worth far less than their loans. CAC states on its own website: “Approval decisions are typically available in 30 seconds or less, and nearly 80 percent of deals are approved for funding within 24 hours.”

Further, CAC misstated key terms on loan agreements, including the principal and interest amounts, and did not disclose thousands of dollars in credit charges. Although the average loan carried an annual interest rate of more than 38%, other rates reached over 100%. These predatory debt trap loans soon defaulted within 12 or 18 months.

“Credit Acceptance Corporation set car buyers up to fail by making loans it knew they would never be able to afford, and by allowing dealers to inflate the cost of financing agreements with hidden add-ons. As a result, the company profited, even while customers lost their cars and continued to struggle with debt,” said District of Columbia Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb.

Other state officials had similar reactions to the settlement.

“Credit Acceptance Corporation closed its eyes to deceptive origination practices and made predatory, high-cost auto loans that were likely to result in repossession and leave consumers trapped in a cycle of debt,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Consumers eligible for restitution will be notified by a claims administrator. Consumers with questions about the settlement can call CAC’s customer service number at 800-634-1506.

The settlement also provides additional terms that will free affected consumers from many of the other financial harms inflicted, while other stipulations carry long-term, consumer-friendly reforms.

In the short term, CAC must contact and clearly inform consumers of any products they purchased and offer them a process to cancel those products while keeping their vehicles. It must also notify all affected consumers that their car loan accounts have been closed, no further payments are owed, any lien held has been released, and the certificate of title has been sent. Credit bureaus will also be notified of these actions.

For the next five years, CAC is required to submit written reports that demonstrate how it is complying with all aspects of the consent order. Any failure or shortcomings related to the order will prompt a mandatory remediation plan with details that identify how compliance will be achieved.

Other long-term settlement stipulations that CAC must observe:

• Providing consumers with pre-loan disclosures about the risks of default and the value of the vehicle.
• Limiting a price cap for vehicle prices to no more than 109% of retail book value for certain consumers.
• Implementing procedures that prevent dealers from raising car prices due to creditworthiness or above advertised prices.

Comments in a report released earlier this year by the Center for Responsible Lending showed how consumers with subprime credit scores, most of whom are Black, were left reeling from the effects of predatory car loans.

As Nicole, one participating consumer, noted, “You pay that and nothing, nothing ever changes.”

As CAC faces court-ordered reforms and restitution, Nicole and similar consumers can finally receive well-earned financial fairness.

Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at[email protected].

Based on reporting by Washington Informer.

In August Wilson’s “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” Ma Rainey fights to control what happens to her music once she enters the recording studio. Today, musicians are confronting a new question: What happens when artificial intelligence can profit from the identity attached to their music?

Round House Theatre’s production of “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” which runs through Oct. 18 in Bethesda, Maryland, brings an older struggle over artistic control to the stage. Set during a recording session in 1920s Chicago, Wilson’s play follows Ma and her band as conflicts over art, money and control expose the imbalance between the musicians creating the work and the people conducting the business around it. That same question of who can profit from an artist’s value is now being tested in a very different setting nearly a century later.

Musicians Jason Isbell, David Lowery, Guy Forsyth and Eduardo Calle filed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 31 against AI music company Suno. They allege that the company commercially exploits artists through an AI system capable of generating music imitating artists’ identities and styles without permission. Suno disputes the allegations.

The U.S. Copyright Office has also studied AI-generated digital replicas and recommended federal legislation to address gaps in protections against unauthorized replicas of a person’s voice or appearance. Its broader AI inquiry received more than 10,000 public comments.

For Nicole Michelle Haskins, who portrays Ma Rainey in the Round House production, the struggle over power begins with understanding Ma as more than a demanding recording star.

“She is the only advocate she has,” Haskins said. “The choices presented to her are to surrender or fight. Ma chooses to fight.”

Haskins said Ma enters the recording studio knowing the value that she brings, even as the people around her repeatedly challenge her decisions. She exercises her leverage and pushes back when others attempt to dictate how the session will proceed.

The real Gertrude “Ma” Rainey was one of the earliest Black women to record blues commercially. Between 1923 and 1928, she made more than 100 recordings for Paramount Records, according to the Smithsonian.

One surviving agreement shows how at least part of that business worked. A Dec. 12, 1923, royalty agreement for “Walking Blues,” signed by Rainey and composer Lovie Austin, provided them two cents for each printed piano copy sold in the United States and Canada. They were also entitled to one-fourth of the royalties the publisher received from mechanical reproductions, minus a 10% collection cost.

For Haskins, portraying a character negotiating those relationships does not feel entirely removed from being an artist today.

“The life that I live as an artist is not that dissimilar from the world that August Wilson has written,” Haskins said.

The technology surrounding artists, however, has changed dramatically.

The scale of AI-generated music has grown quickly. In July, streaming service Deezer said it was receiving about 90,000 fully AI-generated tracks a day, more than half of its daily uploads. Those tracks accounted for less than 3% of all streams.

The lawsuit against Suno is not primarily a traditional copyright case about whether an AI-generated song copied a particular recording. Instead, the musicians rely largely on state right-of-publicity laws, which concern the commercial use of a person’s identity.

According to the complaint, users can enter musicians’ names and use them as a retrieval key for AI-generated music drawing on characteristics associated with those artists. The plaintiffs argue that an output does not have to copy a specific song or perfectly reproduce an artist’s voice for the artist’s commercial identity to be exploited.

Suno disputes that characterization of its technology. The company has said it does not use artists’ names as training metadata and does not permit users to prompt its system for specific artists. Suno says references to artists are filtered and redirected toward descriptions of musical characteristics. Its own prompting guide, for example, encourages users to describe features such as tempo, vocals and instrumentation, using phrases like “bright pop track,” “110 BPM,” “female vocals” and a “big synth hook.”

The Suno dispute centers on more than ownership of a particular song or recording. It raises the question of whether an artist’s name, likeness and other identifying characteristics can be used commercially to generate new music without permission.

Haskins resists describing that underlying conflict as merely contemporary.

“I don’t think they feel contemporary,” Haskins said of Ma’s concerns. “I think they feel worldly.”

For Haskins, AI is one setting for a larger struggle over who has power over creative work. She said the problem of Black people being separated from control of things they created has existed far longer than the technology now raising those questions. The Library of Congress notes that early record companies sometimes used white performers to record music associated with Black artists rather than hire the Black performers themselves, while Black musicians remained rare on early commercial recordings.

“It just hasn’t stopped happening,” she said.

That interpretation shapes the way Haskins portrays Ma’s fight for control. She pointed to a brief moment in the second act when Ma’s manager attempts to steer her toward a different song. Ma refuses and proceeds with the recording she intends to make.

Haskins said the moment stands out precisely because Ma does not need a dramatic confrontation to establish who has the final say.

“She’s not demanding control. She’s not asserting control,” Haskins said. “She is simply positioning herself in correct order.”

La Tetra Metts-Owens is a reporter forHUNewsService.com. She covers Prince George’s County and theater.

Based on reporting by Howard University News Service.

“Stompin’ Out Gun Violence” uses sought-after sneakers to open the door to a life-saving message for young people.

A new pair of shoes can do more than complete an outfit—it can help a young person step toward a safer future. That is the idea behind “Stompin’ Out Gun Violence,” a traveling shoe giveaway led by the Latroy V. Harris Initiative, “I Will Not Die to Gun Violence.”

Founder Monte Mabra says the work comes with no paycheck. Its reward is measured instead in smiles, gratitude, and the chance to turn a potentially negative outcome into a positive one. By pairing free shoes with conversations about gun violence, organizers hope to reach young people with a message that stays with them long after the event ends.

“I like what Monte is doing to change the course of violent crime,” said Michael F. Hupy of personal injury law firm Hupy and Abraham, S.C. and leading sponsor “The shoes carry them in the door, and the message follows them out.”

Students at Carmen School of Science and Technology, 3215 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, received Nike, Adidas, and Jordans. Principal Miller said she looks forward to next year and to continuing to build a relationship with the Latroy V. Harris Initiative.

The initiative honors Latroy V. Harris, who was lost to gun violence on Dec. 15, 2025. His family and loved ones are keeping his memory alive by working to prevent other families from experiencing the same loss.

The campaign’s next stop is Bruce Elementary School on Sept. 30. Organizers plan to give away shoes, gun- and domestic-violence awareness and prevention coloring books, and educational books.

For the young people reached by the initiative, each pair of shoes carries more than a brand name. It carries a reminder: their lives matter, their futures are worth protecting, and every step away from violence counts.

Based on reporting by Milwaukee Times Weekly.