A much-anticipated trial is finally getting underway in the blockbuster Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation – a courtroom showdown that could have seismic impacts on the live music business.
Competition law is dense, and the claims have evolved since they were initially filed in 2024. So what allegations remain? How will Live Nation defend itself? And can the DOJ really break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster?
We’ve answered these burning questions and more. Read now to get up to speed as jury selection for the trial begins today (March 2) in a New York federal courtroom.
What is Live Nation accused of doing?
The DOJ’s original lawsuit, joined by dozens of state attorneys general, alleged that Live Nation has monopolized multiple aspects of the live music industry and runs an illegal “flywheel” — reaping revenue from ticket buyers, using that money to sign artists, then leveraging that repertoire to lock venues into exclusive ticketing contracts that yield ever more revenue.
After two years of litigation, however, the case was narrowed last month in a pretrial ruling by Judge Arun Subramanian. Most notably, the judge cut away claims that Live Nation operates a nationwide concert booking monopoly. What remains are two key sets of federal claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the nation’s hallmark competition law that has been on the books since 1890.
The first is that Live Nation abuses its vast portfolio of amphitheaters to force artists to use its promotion services. The DOJ says this is what’s known as “tying,” an anticompetitive practice in which companies force consumers to buy a second product they do not really want. If artists want to have a successful tour, this claim goes, they need access to Live Nation’s many theaters – and to get access to Live Nation’s venues, they must use the company’s promotion services.
The second set of allegations deals with Live Nation’s ownership of Ticketmaster. Here, the government claims Live Nation illegally forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, rather than allowing them to also use SeatGeek or other competitors interchangeably. The government claims that Live Nation accomplishes this, in part, by threatening to withhold popular musical acts from venues that use rival ticketers.
Related
Attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia are also pursuing parallel claims against Live Nation as part of the case, based on the same set of facts under antitrust law and state consumer protection statutes.
How will Live Nation defend itself?
On the accusation that it leverages its amphitheaters to force artists to use its promotion services, Live Nation will argue that it merely refuses to open up its venues to rival promoters, not to certain artists. And it says that’s totally legal under antitrust law, since firms are not obligated under the law to help business competitors. Live Nation will also likely say there’s little concrete evidence that it coerced anyone, nor that any of its conduct caused actual anticompetitive harm.
When it comes to the allegation of forcing venues to sign exclusive deals with Ticketmaster, Live Nation will argue that that claim, too, is supported by very little actual evidence. On the contrary, the company says many concert venues willingly choose to use to use a single ticketing partner for business reasons, including ease of use and better financial terms.
“After hundreds of hours of deposition testimony and millions of pages of document discovery, that theory turns out not to be even arguably true,” the company wrote in court papers last fall. “The truth is simply that venues in this market tend to prefer exclusive ticketing contracts.”
Who will be testifying at the trial?
When testimony kicks off this week, it will feature a who’s who of the major players in the live music business. Live Nation’s Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold are expected to testify, as are figures from competitors like Anschutz Entertainment Group.
John Abbamondi, the one-time CEO of the Brooklyn Nets, is expected to testify about how the team’s arena, the Barclay Center, lost access to some concerts after a much-discussed switch from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek. And industry titan Irving Azoff is supposed to take the stand too — thanks to the fact that he was the boss of Ticketmaster when the company merged with Live Nation in 2010.
Some major musicians could also testify. Ben Lovett, keyboardist for Mumford & Sons, could take the stand, as could Kid Rock, a Trump administration favorite who testified before Congress in January over the practices of the live music industry.
When should we expect a decision?
The trial itself will likely last for at least a month. Once both sides finish presenting all their witnesses and evidence, the jury will deliberate and come back with a verdict determining whether or not Live Nation has violated antitrust law.
If the jury hands Live Nation a loss, it will be the judge who decides the company’s structural punishment. But that wouldn’t be the end of the road; if Live Nation doesn’t like the outcome, it’s free to appeal and get the review of a higher court.
Could Live Nation be broken up if it loses?
The DOJ has not been shy that its goal is to unwind the 2010 deal that merged Live Nation and Ticketmaster in the first place. Live Nation vehemently argues that this is inappropriate and unnecessary, and top company lawyer Dan Wall recently wrote in a since-deleted blog post that Judge Subramanian’s decision to winnow down the case “undermines any serious argument for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster.”
The possible divestiture of Ticketmaster is what’s known as a “structural remedy” in antitrust law – that is, an order by a judge for a company to change its business model. If Live Nation is found liable, Judge Subramanian could indeed order the company to sell Ticketmaster or a different business unit. But he also could decide that a forced sale is too draconian and go the route of an injunction instead, meaning an order that bars certain business practices he deems anticompetitive.
Related
Are there financial penalties at stake too?
This is where the states come in. While the DOJ’s federal case is focused on structural relief changing Live Nation’s business, various states are seeking financial penalties for the alleged monopolistic conduct.
It’s hard to say at this point what the dollar figure might look like if Live Nation loses these claims, since the government’s damages calculations have been filed under seal. Different states also have very different damages caps for the violations they’re alleging. For example, Michigan and Rhode Island’s local antitrust laws max out at civil penalties of $50,000 per violation. But in Colorado, Florida and Illinois, state-level antitrust statutes allow for civil fines of up to $1 million.
Is a settlement still on the table?
It’s not over until it’s over. To the contrary, it’s quite common for lawsuits to settle during jury selection or midway through trial, as the progress of the case can provide one side with leverage and tip the negotiating scales.
Live Nation has openly sought to resolve the case through a settlement that allows it to keep Ticketmaster; this was the crux of Wall’s now-deleted blog post, titled, “It’s Time to Move On.” There have also been rumblings about the company pursuing deal talks in Washington D.C., including reports that it hired Donald Trump allies Kellyanne Conway and Mike Davis for lobbying work.
That said, a settlement would only end the trial if it’s signed by the DOJ and all 40 state attorneys general involved in the case. If some states held back from a federally negotiated settlement, their claims against Live Nation would move ahead.
