Two small businesses that participated as food vendors at Olicomplaints about delayed payments, costly participation requirements and operational problems, drawing scrutiny to the companies responsible for managing concessions at the Live Nation-produced event
The complaints center on arrangements involving DLS Events, a food-and-beverage contractor identified by participating vendors, rather than any demonstrated involvement by Rodrigo in negotiating vendor agreements or processing payments.
However, the festival was produced by Live Nation and its subsidiary C3 Presents, raising questions about how responsibility for vendor operations was divided among the event’s producers and outside contractors.
Daisy Chain Fields took place August 29 at Great Park in Irvine, California, featuring Rodrigo, Chappell Roan, Doechii, Mitski, Garbage, Bikini Kill and other performers.
The controversy emerged more than five weeks later, when Ugly Oats Kitchen and Por Suerte Cookies publicly described their experiences at the event.
Vendor Alleges $1,400 in Fees, 35% Sales Commission
Mary Chacon, owner of Ugly Oats Kitchen, published an open letter addressed to Rodrigo on October 6 describing what she characterized as substantial financial losses and inadequate support during the festival.
Chacon said her small bakery had been told by DLS Events that it could face financial penalties if it ran out of food.
“We were told by DLS Events that we would be fined if we ran out of food,” Chacon wrote.
According to her account, the warning prompted the business to produce thousands of cookies and suspend its regular operations to prepare for the festival.
Chacon also said the vendor agreement included approximately $1,400 in fees and required the business to surrender 35% of its sales to DLS Events.
Those terms, if accurately described, meant the business would retain 65% of its gross sales before accounting for the additional participation fees, ingredients, labor, transportation and other operating costs.
Such arrangements can give vendors access to large audiences without requiring promoters to operate the concessions themselves. They also place substantial financial risk on participating businesses, particularly when vendors must invest in perishable inventory before knowing what sales will be.
A commission on sales is not inherently unusual in festival concessions. But the economics depend heavily on expected attendance, booth location, competition from other vendors and the reliability of sales forecasts.
Chacon said Ugly Oats Kitchen ultimately lost several thousand dollars participating in the event.
She attributed the losses in part to limited customer traffic and what she considered an unfavorable mix of food vendors.
According to her account, festival organizers had booked too many dessert businesses relative to meal vendors, while some attendees were unaware food was available in the area where her bakery had been placed.
Chacon also alleged that vendors received important logistical information shortly before the event and that her team encountered difficulties accessing food and other support.
One employee suffered what Chacon described as heat exhaustion, she said, and staff faced difficulties leaving their assigned location.
The allegations have not been independently established through a review of the vendor contract or festival operating records.
A second participating business, Por Suerte Cookies, subsequently shared a similar account.
The custom fortune cookie company said it had invested heavily in preparation but experienced disappointing sales and had not received its sales proceeds when it posted about the festival.
“We barely sold anything. I took a significant financial loss,” the business wrote.
Its complaints included communication problems in the weeks leading up to the event.
The accounts do not necessarily reflect the experiences of all participating vendors. As CBC News reported, other businesses have publicly described positive experiences at Daisy Chain Fields.
Live Nation, C3 Presents and the Contractor Relationship
Although Chacon addressed her complaints directly to Rodrigo, the corporate structure behind Daisy Chain Fields is important to understanding who may have been responsible for the arrangements.
Live Nation’s June 22 festival announcement explicitly identifies C3 Presents and Live Nation as the event’s producers.
C3 Presents is a Live Nation subsidiary, as confirmed by the company’s SEC subsidiary disclosures.
The Austin-based promoter is responsible for a substantial portfolio of major festivals and live entertainment events.
DLS Events, meanwhile, operates as a separate event-services business offering concessions and food-and-beverage management.
The vendors’ accounts identify DLS as a key contact for participation requirements and subsequent payment concerns.
Another company, Jetty Event Productions, also appears to have been involved in the festival’s food operations.
Jetty lists Daisy Chain Fields among its 2026 events and describes its business as managing food programming for large-scale music festivals.
Among the services Jetty advertises are vendor selection, permitting assistance, staffing and the placement of food vendors throughout festival grounds.
Its website also identifies C3 Presents, Live Nation and DLS Events among its industry partners.
Those public disclosures establish a connection to the event but do not clarify the precise division of responsibilities among the companies at Daisy Chain Fields.
In particular, it remains unclear which company established the vendor fee structure, whether the 35% sales commission was retained entirely by DLS or shared with other entities, and who had final authority over vendor placement.
Those distinctions matter because several of the vendors’ complaints involve operational decisions that may have been handled by different companies.
The decision to address Rodrigo publicly also illustrates a challenge for artists whose names are attached to major live entertainment events.
Rodrigo founded Daisy Chain Fields and served as its public face, making her an obvious target for frustrated participants seeking attention and accountability. But there is no public evidence that the singer personally negotiated the disputed vendor contracts, established concession fees, selected food-service contractors or controlled the distribution of vendor payments.
Those are the kinds of operational and commercial functions generally managed by festival producers and their contractors. In this case, Live Nation — one of the world’s largest live entertainment companies — and its subsidiary C3 Presents were the announced producers, while DLS Events and Jetty were involved in the vendor ecosystem.
The relevant questions therefore concern how those companies structured their relationships, what oversight the festival’s producers exercised and which entity was contractually responsible for the disputed payments and services.
That distinction does not necessarily protect the artist from reputational consequences. When a performer lends their name, creative vision and public reputation to a major event, failures elsewhere in the operation can become controversies associated with the artist, even when there is no evidence of their direct involvement.
For Rodrigo, whose festival was explicitly built around supporting women and girls, complaints from women-owned small businesses carry a particular reputational risk. Resolving those concerns may be important to the festival’s credibility, regardless of which company is ultimately responsible for the underlying arrangements.
Payment Complaints Prompt Festival Outreach
The payment issue is separate from whether a food vendor made or lost money participating in the festival.
Under arrangements where an event’s designated payment system collects concession sales, vendors may receive their share of the proceeds after the event rather than collecting the full purchase amounts directly.
The precise payment-processing arrangements used at Daisy Chain Fields have not been independently confirmed.
Chacon alleged that Ugly Oats Kitchen had not received its sales proceeds by the applicable contractual deadline when she made her complaints public.
Por Suerte Cookies also reported an outstanding payment at that time.
Neither the individual payment deadlines nor the final reconciliation amounts have been independently verified.
There have since been indications that festival representatives are attempting to address the problems.
In an October 7 update, Chacon said two Daisy Chain Fields executives had contacted her to discuss the experience.
She described them as apologetic and interested in addressing the issues, and said they were working with DLS Events to improve the situation.
That account suggests festival management has become directly involved in responding to the complaints, although it does not establish who was originally responsible for the disputed payments or operational decisions.
The current status of the vendors’ outstanding proceeds could not be independently confirmed.
TicketNews sought comment by email from C3 Presents and DLS Events, asking about contractual responsibility, vendor fees, payment processing, operational concerns and whether outstanding payments have been completed. Neither company had responded by publication time.
Charitable Success and Vendor Economics
The dispute comes after Daisy Chain Fields attracted considerable attention for its charitable mission.
As TicketNews previously reported, organizers announced that the festival had raised $10 million for organizations supporting women and girls.
Melinda French Gates subsequently pledged to match that amount through her company Pivotal, bringing the announced total charitable commitment to $20 million.
The festival’s beneficiaries include organizations focused on reproductive rights, maternal health, economic empowerment and support for women and girls.
The event itself was also conceived as a showcase for women performers, an approach Rodrigo emphasized in the initial festival announcement previously covered by TicketNews.
Those fundraising achievements are distinct from the commercial arrangements governing food vendors, and there is no established connection between the charitable proceeds and the disputed vendor payments.
Still, the complaints illustrate how the economics of a major festival can differ significantly between the event’s producers and the small businesses serving its audience.
Participating vendors can face substantial upfront costs while assuming the risk that sales will fall short of expectations.
For the companies managing concessions, the unresolved questions concern the terms vendors were offered, the accuracy of the expectations communicated to them and the procedures used to settle their sales after the event.
The answers will also help establish whether the payment disputes resulted from isolated administrative problems or reflected broader issues in how concessions were managed at the inaugural festival.
