Fundamental things could soon change in the concert and live entertainment industry. A jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable for operating as a monopoly on Wednesday (April 15), making one of the most significant antitrust decisions in a long time.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) originally sued Live Nation 2024; Around 40 states and Washington DC joined as co-plaintiffs. The accusation: Thanks to its dominant position in ticketing, concert promotion and events, Live Nation exerts a disproportionately large influence on the entire live entertainment industry. For example, the jury learned that Live Nation had threatened to deprive large venues of lucrative concerts if they did not sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster – and that artists who wanted to perform in Live Nation-owned amphitheaters also had to engage the company as a promoter.
Live Nation’s lawyers countered that the company had achieved its success through its own efforts. The group’s multi-layered business model, they argue, is no different from that of its competitors; Success is simply based on offering artists, fans and event operators the best quality.
The judgment and its consequences
How significant was this victory?
Huge. The jury ruled overwhelmingly against Live Nation: every “yes” box on the ten-page verdict sheet was checked. Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney who took over as lead defense attorney after the DOJ settlement mid-trial, told ROLLING STONE: “There were many ways we could have achieved less than a complete victory – but this was a complete victory.”
What exactly were Live Nation and Ticketmaster found liable for?
The central charges revolved around whether Live Nation and Ticketmaster had monopoly power over different areas of the industry – such as the primary ticket market for large concert halls or the market for large amphitheaters. The jury also confirmed the states’ so-called “tying” allegation: Live Nation had unlawfully tied artist promotion services to the use of its amphitheaters.
Additionally, the jury found that Live Nation “engaged in unlawful conduct that harmed competition” in each of the 33 co-plaintiff states as well as in DC – and that the company violated the individual antitrust or competition laws of several states.
Penalties and possible consequences
That sounds serious. What punishment is threatened?
That’s not certain yet, and we won’t know it any time soon. Judge Arun Subramanian will determine the remedies in a second phase of the proceedings – exactly when is still unclear. As Kessler explained, over the next few months the states will work together and with the support of experts to develop a proposal that they will then submit to the court.
In principle, the states could request a whole range of measures: from the break-up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster to the forced sale of other assets, such as certain venues. In addition, there are likely to be significant compensation payments.
How significant?
The jury was asked, among other things, whether Ticketmaster had used its alleged monopoly position to take advantage of fans when it came to ticket prices. The answer: yes. The jury agreed that the average surcharge was $1.72 per ticket. Judge Subramanian uses this figure as the basis for calculating damages. $1.72 sounds small on its own – but multiplied over potentially millions of tickets, in more than 30 states, the sum could easily reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more.
What does the ruling mean for the DOJ settlement from a few weeks ago?
This proposal – which was agreed to by six of the original co-plaintiff states – still needs to be approved by Judge Subramanian. He is supposed to review the settlement and ensure that it is in the public interest – under a law called the Tunney Act. As Kessler noted, Subramanian has called on the states, Live Nation and the DOJ to jointly propose a schedule that takes into account both the remedial action hearings and the Tunney Act review “as these issues are related.”
The DOJ settlement under the microscope
Was the original settlement really “in the public interest”?
That is in Judge Subramanian’s hands – but the proposal has attracted many critics. Live Nation did make some concessions: Ticketmaster agreed to limit exclusive contracts with venues to four years and to give concert halls the choice between exclusive and non-exclusive agreements. It also wanted to cap service fees at all Live Nation-owned amphitheaters at 15 percent, and the company wanted to give up exclusive booking agreements at 13 amphitheaters it doesn’t own.
But many felt that was insufficient – including the state attorneys general who prosecuted the case, politicians, competitors of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and industry groups such as the National Independent Venue Association. Senator Amy Klobuchar told ROLLING STONE after the settlement was announced: “Every time a Justice Department or government has done something like this, the company has found a way around it and gotten even bigger. The only way to have a truly competitive future in ticketing, venues and promotions would be to break them up.”
Didn’t Klobuchar and other senators just ask the judge to consider the settlement?
Yes. The evening before the verdict, Democratic Senators Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono and Peter Welch called on Subramanian to “take a close look” at the deal. They cited recent reports that the settlement was “negotiated under suspicious circumstances” and may have been reached “as a result of political pressure rather than in the public interest.”
Political pressure and Trump connections
Suspicious circumstances? Political pressure? That sounds explosive!
The Live Nation case has taken on a significant political dimension – particularly because the company has lobbied the Trump administration extensively. Most notably, the company hired MAGA influencer Mike Davis, who is also said to have helped get the DOJ to drop its lawsuit against a $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard and Juniper Networks. According to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal, Trump is said to have personally intervened: After being asked about the case by prominent figures, the president asked what was holding up a deal. One finally came about after a meeting at the White House that reportedly included Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, the company’s lawyers and DOJ officials, including then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Subramanian appeared to want to explore the settlement even before the senators submitted their letter. The judge was among those involved — including some of the DOJ’s own trial lawyers — who were caught off guard by the deal. The agreement was said to have been reached on March 5, but the court was not informed until March 9 – a period of time that Subramanian described as “unacceptable”. A few days later, he issued a standard but unambiguous order requiring “all relevant communications” related to the settlement to be “preserved.”
What is Live Nation planning next?
The company has announced an appeal, meaning the case could drag on for several years. Live Nation also hopes to succeed on some post-sentence motions that could change the nature of the verdict. In a statement Wednesday, the company called the jury’s verdict “not the final word” and pointed to pending motions to determine whether “the liability and damages decisions stand.”
What does this mean for fans?
Live Nation also targeted one of the states’ designated experts. There is “a pending motion to strike the damages statement on which the jury’s verdict is based. The court has also deferred its decision on that motion.”
What does this all mean for fans? Or for artists? Or for independent venue operators and promoters?
These are potentially billion-dollar questions that unfortunately cannot be answered until the remedies are determined – or if Live Nation is successful in its appeal. The landscape of the live entertainment industry could well shift dramatically as a result of this ruling, but it won’t happen overnight. In other words: Anyone hoping for concert ticket prices to fall in the near future will have to be patient.
