After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation officially is underway.
As part of its case, the DOJ accused Live Nation of requiring music artists to use its promotional services when they play at one of its venues. Because so many venues are owned by the entertainment company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anticompetitive.
Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court, and opening statements are expected Tuesday. Since the complaint was first filed in 2024, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based ticketing giant has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anticompetitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster, its subsidiary, should be broken up.
The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over the sentencing of disgraced music mogul Sean Combs last year, at the helm.
Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster chief executive, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and Kid Rock also could take the stand.
Key claims in the lawsuit
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market.
Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.
The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The companies merged in 2010, a move that has been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.
“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.
“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.
Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”
“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” Live Nation wrote in a previous statement.
Next steps after the trial
If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation would maintain the right to appeal such a decision and take the matter to a higher court.
“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Assn., said in a statement.
“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”
Live Nation also is facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
