NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.
The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.
Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.
The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.
Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.
Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.
“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.
Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.
The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.
Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.
However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.
“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”
Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.
One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.
National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.
“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”
Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.
Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.
The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”
The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.
Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.
“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”
Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”
“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.
Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.
The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.
Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.
The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.
Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.
Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.
“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.
Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.
The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.
Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.
However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.
“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”
Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.
One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.
National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.
“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”
Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.
Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.
The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”
The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.
Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.
“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”
Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”
“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.
Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.
The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.
Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.
The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.
Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.
Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.
“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.
Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.
The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.
Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.
However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.
“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”
Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.
One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.
National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.
“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”
Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.
Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.
The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”
The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.
Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.
“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”
Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”
“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.
Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.
The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.
Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.
The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.
Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.
Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.
“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.
Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.
The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”
The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.
Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and also is increasing its involvement in the resale market, according to the lawsuit.
Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.
However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.
“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”
Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.
One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.
National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.
“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”
Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.
Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.
The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”
The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.
Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.
“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”
Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”
“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.
Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
