antitrust
Live Nation’s top two in-house attorneys will not be allowed to access “highly confidential” documents produced by competitors like AEG Presents and SeatGeek in the antitrust lawsuit filed against the touring giant by the Department of Justice, though it will be granted access to less sensitive “confidential” documents under strict conditions limiting how the information is used and shared, according to a protective court order signed Monday (July 29) in the Southern District of New York.
A federal judge overseeing the case agreed to establish the two-tiered system for dealing with non-public documents the DOJ subpoenaed from Live Nation competitors as part of its ongoing investigation. For the last six weeks, DOJ antitrust lead trial counsel Bonny Sweeney has been in talks with Live Nation, which is accused of operating its ticketing and concert promotion businesses as a monopoly, about restricting access for the company’s in-house lawyers — executive vp of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall and senior vp of litigation Kimberly Tobias — to confidential information handed over by competitors. Attorneys for Live Nation have argued that granting Wall and Tobias access to confidential information is vital in helping the company prepare its defense.
“Mr. Wall and Ms. Tobias are litigation counsel in good standing and officers of the court,” Live Nation outside counsel Alfred C. Pfeiffer wrote in a letter to New York federal judge Arun Subramanian. “Both have been bound by numerous protective orders and never been accused of violating those orders. Their access to confidential information in no way puts such information at risk.”
Trending on Billboard
Government lawyers counter that even if Wall and Tobias “pledge not to use any information they receive other than for this case, they can’t unsee what they have seen,” Subramanian wrote in a July 23 court order trying to resolve the confidentiality access question. Two days after that, attorneys for SeatGeek, AEG and ASM Global filed letters asking Subramanian to prevent Wall and Tobias from viewing any sensitive documents produced by the companies.
The files SeatGeek produced for the government “include documents that a company would never want to fall into the hands of any competitor,” SeatGeek attorney William Kalema wrote to the court.
“SeatGeek hears on at least a weekly basis from venues that are reluctant even to meet with SeatGeek for fear of retaliation from Defendants,” the letter continued. “If the market were to learn that venues’ contracts and other communications with Ticketmaster’s competitors were made available to Defendants’ senior management, SeatGeek’s ability to market its product would be hindered even further.”
Attorneys for AEG said they had produced “hundreds of thousands of documents” for the DOJ, including the company’s “most sensitive and competitively significant materials.” AEG attorney Justin Bernick took particular issue with Wall over past statements Wall has made in the media and on Live Nation’s blog, arguing that Wall has often acted as the company’s spokesperson rather than its lawyer.
After a brief hearing, Subramanian ruled that Wall and Tobias would not be allowed to view documents marked as highly confidential — meaning those involving trade secrets, customer lists, current or future financial and strategic information, private contract terms, personnel files, planning documents, and anything deemed sensitive by the courts — and that those documents can only be viewed by Live Nation’s outside attorneys. Wall and Tobias can, however, view confidential information — defined as previously non-public financial information, material related to ownership of non-public companies, business plans and marketing campaign documents related to product development.
In order to view confidential court files, Wall and Tobias must agree not to participate or advise Live Nation on “competitive decision-making” or litigation against AEG or SeatGeek — except for litigation tied to the DOJ lawsuit — for two years after the final confidential documents are reviewed.
The “highly confidential” and “confidential” designations will be determined by those producing the documents, Subramanian wrote in the earlier July 23 opinion, noting that “if it turns out that vast swaths of the record are improperly designated highly confidential, the Court will step in” and require “a page-by-page review of documents by the producing party on a tight timeframe or appropriate modifications to the protective order.”
Billboard has reached out to Live Nation for comment on this story. The trial for USA v. Live Nation Entertainment is scheduled to begin March 2, 2026.
Attorneys for Live Nation want the judge presiding over the company’s historic antitrust case to dismiss the Department of Justice’s allegations that the concert promoter uses illegal tying arrangements to operate its amphitheaters, arguing it has no obligation to allow rival promoters to use the venues it owns or manages.
Live Nation’s co-lead trial counsel Alfred C. Pfeiffer of Latham Watkins argued in a July 17 letter to Judge Arun Subramanian that this practice, described as a “refusal to deal,” is common in the concert business and protected by Supreme Court precedent.
“As a general matter, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long recognized right of a [defendant] engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal,” Pfeiffer writes, quoting a 2004 ruling in a case brought by Verizon.
Trending on Billboard
Accordingly, Live Nation has no obligation “to extend a helping hand to new entrants” or help its rivals “survive or expand,” Pfeiffer notes, adding, “the unimpeachable freedom to refuse to deal with rivals (in all but the rarest circumstances, which are not even arguably present in this case) rests on bedrock antitrust principles.”
In the government’s 128-page complaint against Live Nation, attorneys with the DOJ’s antitrust division allege that Live Nation illegally “conditions artists’ access” to the 56 outdoor amphitheaters the company controls by forcing artists to chose “Live Nation as the promoter for concerts at its venues.”
Pfeiffer’s letter was born out of a June 27 pre-trial hearing in which Judge Subramanian invited Live Nation’s attorneys to file a letter to the court identifying issues that Live Nation had with the DOJ complaint “as opposed to advancing those arguments after” an amended complaint is filed,” Pfeiffer wrote. “Your Honor advised that doing so would provide Defendants ‘a good argument that those claims should be dismissed with prejudice’” if the government cannot overcome Live Nation’s arguments on a motion to dismiss.
Live Nation lawyers also want the antitrust claims filed by 30 states’ attorneys general alongside the DOJ dismissed, including 22 separate claims under their own state laws.
“These claims are threadbare and conclusory” Pfeiffer writes, noting that many of the state AGs merely repeat the DOJ’s allegations without specifically alleging “the elements of each state-law claim” or citing “what conduct allegedly violates the state laws in question.”
Pfeiffer also criticized the states for failing to detail their damage claims and argued that many of the state objections were barred by different state’s statute of limitations.
The DOJ has until Sept. 18 to respond to Live Nation’s letter.
The federal judge presiding over the Department of Justice’s sweeping antitrust case against Live Nation thinks the trial can begin as early as March 2026, according to recent federal court filings.
Judge Arun Subramanian explained Thursday (June 27) in the case’s first pre-trial hearing that he hoped jury selection could begin that month, although he stopped short of setting a firm date.
One of the first items of business for Subramanian, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, is to rule on a planned motion by Live Nation to move the case from the Southern District of New York to the federal circuit court in Washington, D.C., where Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster was first approved. Subramanian said he believed his court could properly preside over the case but that he would fully consider the advisement.
Prior to being appointed to the federal bench, Subramanian was a partner at litigation firm Susman Godfrey LLP, which currently represents Live Nation in the 2021 Astroworld festival class action lawsuit. Subramanian did not work on that case.
Trending on Billboard
Government attorneys said in a Tuesday (July 25) filing that they plan to bring additional claims against Live Nation, noting the new claims could include information that attorneys from Live Nation have designated as highly confidential and might ask the courts to seal.
Attorneys for the government “do not believe any of the information at issue merits sealing or overcomes the presumption of public access to judicial documents,” the filings explain, noting that if Live Nation doesn’t budge, the government will ask the judge to rule on the matter.
Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers also complained that Live Nation attorneys have delayed discovery requests and failed to “fully comply with any of the United States’s three pre-complaint civil investigative demands” dating back to October 2022.
“It took Defendants nearly a year to start producing custodial documents,” the filing reads, noting that “their responses to many specifications remain incomplete today.”
Lawyers for Live Nation called the government’s discovery allegation false, noting that “since October 2022, Defendants have spent over 200,000 attorney hours reviewing documents, produced over 600,000 documents from nearly 70 custodians, produced over 33 million observations of data, submitted dozens of written responses, and provided investigative deposition testimony from three high-level executives in response to Plaintiffs’ investigations. In addition, DOJ has access to nearly two million documents that Defendants produced during prior investigations.”
Attorneys for Live Nation added that they want “any documents, data or testimony Plaintiffs received from third parties during their investigation” no later than July 22, 2024.
Live Nation is also challenging the government’s unusual request for a jury trial instead of having the verdict determined by a judge. “If it occurred, it would be the first jury trial ever in a government-brought monopolization case,” the company’s attorneys wrote.
Outside of Live Nation, the government also says it plans to issue more than 100 third-party subpoenas to “ticketers, promoters, ticket brokers, venues, venue management companies, artists, and artists’ agents and managers.”
Live Nation declined to comment for this story.
Live Nation is being represented by longtime attorney and litigator Timothy L. O’Mara and Alfred C. Pfeiffer, both partners at Latham and Watkins. Pfeiffer is the former co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition Practice. Ticketmaster is represented by David R. Marriott with Cravath, who successfully represented Illumina against the Federal Trade Commission and secured a 2022 victory for the Louis Dreyfus Company against DOJ efforts to block the sale of Imperial Sugar to U.S. Sugar.
The government is represented by Bonny Sweeney, who joined the DOJ in 2022. Sweeney formerly served as a partner at San Francisco firm Hausfeld where she was co-chair of its U.S. antitrust practice group. In 2023, she was named antitrust lawyer of the year by the California Lawyers Association.
AEG CEO Jay Marciano says Live Nation acts like a monopoly and agrees with the U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to break the concert giant and Ticketmaster up, according to an email Marciano sent out to employees on Friday (May 31). In the memo, the executive accuses the company of “preventing other businesses from competing” and “leaving consumers to suffer the consequences.”
In the two-page email, Marciano said the lawsuit was an important milestone for addressing alleged monopolistic behavior in the concert business, noting “the entire ecosystem of our industry” is at stake as the case winds its way through the U.S. legal system.
“Notwithstanding its claims about its profit margins or its market share, it is a monopoly, and it uses its monopoly power to impose its will on the live entertainment business,” wrote Marciano of Live Nation, later writing, “We strongly believe that DOJ’s lawsuit will succeed and ultimately bring sweeping changes.”
Trending on Billboard
Billboard obtained a copy of the email, which can be read in full below. An AEG spokesman did not respond to a request for comment regarding the letter. Live Nation had not responded to a request for comment at press time.
From: Office of Jay Marciano
No doubt all of you are closely following the ongoing media coverage in the wake of the Department of Justice lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. As I mentioned in my note from last week, we spent the last few days carefully reviewing the DOJ filing, as well as Live Nation’s subsequent response to the complaint.
AEG has long maintained that Ticketmaster has a monopoly in the U.S. ticketing marketplace and uses that monopoly power to subsidize Live Nation’s content businesses, preventing other businesses from competing in those areas and leaving consumers to suffer the consequences. This lawsuit is not simply DOJ suing to break up a monopoly; at stake is the entire ecosystem of our industry, one that has long suffered from a badly broken ticketing model. As you know, the cornerstone of Live Nation’s monopoly is Ticketmaster’s exclusive ticketing contracts with the vast majority of major concert venues in the United States. These agreements block competition and innovation and result in higher ticketing fees, denying artists the ability to choose who will ticket their shows and how much their fans should pay.
Following the DOJ filing, Live Nation issued several public comments in service of its ongoing strategy to maintain its dominance – unfairly blaming others for industry problems they have created, making false and misleading statements, and dismissing the significance of the case. Artists, venues, and brokers are not responsible for the broken live entertainment business model in this country – that responsibility lies with Live Nation. Notwithstanding its claims about its profit margins or its market share, it is a monopoly, and it uses its monopoly power to impose its will on the live entertainment business. Live Nation may claim that its margins on promotion are low, but that’s only because it deploys the excessive profits of its ticketing monopoly to outspend what the concert market can profitably sustain. Live Nation does this with the goal of removing competitors from the business and in turn using its continued control of content to preserve a stranglehold on ticketing through venue exclusives.
The DOJ’s case is serious and reflects widespread sentiment among 30 attorneys general from across the country, numerous media outlets, industry commentators, consumer groups, and antitrust experts that Live Nation’s conduct violates the law and harms competition and consumers. While it may take some time, we strongly believe that DOJ’s lawsuit will succeed and ultimately bring sweeping changes resulting in increased competition and more innovation and choice that benefits fans, artists, and ourentire industry. DOJ’s lawsuit means that artists will have a choice in who tickets their concerts, that the ticketing fees consumers pay will be lower, and ultimately that artists and fans will have access to what we all want: more and higher quality live entertainment experiences at a price that fans can afford. We look forward to each and every one of you helping us lay the groundwork now for the future of the industry.
Let’s not get distracted by Live Nation spin. Instead, let’s stay focused on continuing to execute at the highest level, and preparing for a future state of the industry: a world with more competition, more innovation, artist and consumer choice, lower ticketing fees, and more music.Jay
Sorry, kids — Live Nation’s antitrust issues have nothing to do with how hard it is to get Taylor Swift tickets. Those are expensive because there just aren’t enough for everyone who wants to see the show, and the antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation won’t change that — and it might not even change the cost of tickets. What it could do, though, is reshape the way the U.S. concert and ticketing businesses work — as well as how they work together.
The lawsuit, filed by the Department of Justice and more than two dozen states, alleges that Live Nation colluded with the venue management company Oak View Group, threatened potential rivals, locked venues into long-term agreements with Ticketmaster in a way that shuts out competitors, restricted promoters’ access to its venues, and acquired companies to reduce competition. There’s a lot there.
Live Nation, at least according to the lawsuit, operates less like a concert promoter than a live entertainment platform — one that uses its dominance in some sectors to secure or further its dominance in others by making it hard for other companies to separate out its services. The most relevant comparison, at least in legal terms, might be the Microsoft antitrust case. Almost all of the behavior described in the lawsuit takes place outside of public view, but the Department of Justice argues that it reduces competition, and indirectly raises ticket prices for consumers. The first of these seems very likely, at least based on the descriptions of company policy in the lawsuit, but the second is less clear. Based on the thriving secondary market, concert tickets still seem to be underpriced.
Trending on Billboard
The common complaint about Live Nation is that it controls too many venues, and that Ticketmaster has too large a share of the ticketing business, especially in ways that annoy the hell out of consumers. Those factors may be less important than they seem, though. Most areas only have so many venues, and it’s not entirely clear how much sense it might make to have more than one ticket retailer handle each show. (It’s far easier to argue that companies in the primary market shouldn’t enter the secondary market, and vice versa.) And since a share of Ticketmaster fees end up going to promoters or venues anyway, cutting them could just end up shifting costs to the face-value price of tickets. I hate the extra charges on budget airlines, but eliminating them would just make tickets more expensive.
The more serious issue is how Live Nation uses its market power. Ticketmaster signs long-term contracts with venues in exchange for exclusive ticketing rights, which has been an issue since Pearl Jam took on the practice three decades ago. But the most damning parts of the lawsuit, to which Live Nation will respond before the end of summer, involve issues that haven’t received as much attention. The Department of Justice alleges that Live Nation restricts artists from performing in its venues unless they also use the company as a promoter and presses venues to sign exclusive deals with Ticketmaster. This kind of behavior is an important part of what antitrust law is designed to prevent — wielding the leverage that comes from dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in others. The government would need to prove its case, though — and antitrust cases can be hard to win.
The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation works that way by design. It references a 2019 statement by CEO Michael Rapino that “we have to put the show where we make the most economics,” and that venues that use other ticketing companies could be at a disadvantage. (Under the terms of an antitrust consent decree, Live Nation has a court-appointed monitor tasked with preventing this.) The question is whether Live Nation operates this way, and whether what might be thought of as its platform is intended to do so.
Hence the comparison to Microsoft, which the Department of Justice sued in 1998 for trying to use its dominance in operating systems, and its resulting leverage over PC makers, to control the market for web browsers. (Microsoft lost in district court; that decision was partly overturned by the court of appeals; and the case was eventually settled.) In that case, though, the compatibility issues were intuitive and the harm to consumers was obvious.
For years, antitrust law focused on protecting consumers from higher prices, and it’s not entirely clear that tickets would get cheaper — or that there would be more or better concerts — if Live Nation were constrained or broken up. Some judges and scholars now take a broader view, though, and it’s easier to imagine that more competition would lead to more innovation.
Apart from the legal issues, the lawsuit portrays Live Nation as a minefield of conflict of interest, where the best side of a deal to be on is both of them. Thinking about the company means appreciating the significant synergies among its different businesses while somehow also believing that those different businesses can negotiate fairly with one another. Think of Live Nation’s talent management operation, where agents that represent artists sometimes negotiate deals for concerts against another division of the company. The artists must be satisfied with the service they’re getting, but you also have to wonder if the House always wins.
This is just the opening salvo in what’s likely to be a long conflict — antitrust cases tend to be long and complicated, and this one could have eras, like Swift. By the end of it, though, whichever side wins, Live Nation will either be constrained from having its various divisions work together in a way that disadvantages competitors or it will have to take more care that they don’t — and this can only be a good thing for the rest of the business.
The Department of Justice dropped a wide-ranging antitrust complaint against Live Nation on Thursday (May 23), highlighting more than a dozen examples of the company’s “anticompetitive and exclusionary” behavior in accusing it of operating live music’s largest monopoly.
The evidence looks particularly bad for Live Nation chief executive Michael Rapino, whose own emails are being used against him to document alleged threats made against competitors while the company was operating under a federal consent decree tied to its 2010 merger with Live Nation.
Under the arrangement, regulators with the government had the right to obtain company documents, including communications, without a subpoena. The most damaging evidence is an email exchange involving Oak View Group’s Tim Leiweke and mega music manager Irving Azoff, who co-founded the arena development and management company together.
Trending on Billboard
Leiweke was the CEO of AEG, Live Nation’s main rival in the concert business, until 2012, when he was fired by company owner Phil Anschutz. After a brief stint running the Toronto Maple Leafs and its sports and entertainment interests in Canada, he returned to the United States and eventually founded Oak View Group (OVG) in 2015.
The government claims Rapino tried to leverage his company’s partnership with OVG to pressure private equity firm Silver Lake to kill off a rival ticketing company that Rapino allegedly believed represented a major threat to Ticketmaster.
If true, the story could be a major problem for Rapino, underscoring the government narrative that despite Live Nation’s massive market share, the CEO operates the company like a paranoid pugilist, willing to cross ethical and legal boundaries to eliminate tiny threats.
Silver Lake has been OVG’s strategic investment partner since the company’s founding, investing $100 million to launch it. Today, it has more than $2.5 billion tied up in OVG development projects. Silver Lake also owns TEG, an Australian concert promotion company that operates Ticketek, a large Australian ticket provider with more than 130 clients.
According to the 120-page complaint filed Thursday in federal court, “In 2021, Live Nation’s CEO complained to Oak View Group’s co-founder that TEG was ‘[f]ull on competitors.’ Oak View Group, in turn, conveyed to Silver Lake that Live Nation was ‘not happy.’” The complaint adds that Rapino then escalated his complaints to Silver Lake directly, stating: “I am all in on [Oak View Group] where the big play lies with venues – why insult me with this investment in ticketing/promotions etc.’”
According to the lawsuit, “Rapino threatened to pull its support from Oak View Group and instead back an Oak View Group competitor unless TEG stopped competing with Live Nation in the United States,” the complaint alleges.
“I can assure you the OVG investment is a much bigger win then T[E]G,” Rapino wrote in an email to an unnamed Silver Lake executive that’s included in the lawsuit. “It’s been a huge win for both sides– we have over 20 global arenas in development that neither could do without the other … do you really want LN backing [AEG’s venue development and management company]…? Seems like a dumb trade off??”
To aid in the pressure campaign, Azoff “reportedly refused to allow TEG to promote any of his large roster of artist clients,” the complaint alleges. It further states that Azoff told Rapino “that he was going to demand that Silver Lake sell TEG. [To which] Live Nation’s CEO replied ‘Love ya.’”
“Silver Lake now seems ‘intent on dumping teg’ and has asked, through the founder of Oak View Group, whether Live Nation would be interested in purchasing TEG,” the complaint reads in describing the back-and-forth.
Live Nation did not purchase TEG, but in early 2023, a deal was brokered for Silver Lake to sell the company to investment companies Blackstone and KKR. That deal collapsed in October over disagreements over the valuation of the company, which is now being readied for an IPO in Australia.
Live Nation issued a statement on this allegation, stating that the “claim reveals not only a disregard for the facts, but also deep hypocrisy.”
“The current DOJ and FTC have been vocal critics of private equity companies making multiple investments in the same industry because of competitive ‘entanglements,’” the statement continues. “So was Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino when, after it had already made an investment in OVG, Silver Lake Partners decided to invest in the Australian live entertainment company, TEG. Rapino’s complaint was fundamentally the same as the DOJ/FTC concern with private equity rollups: it created a conflict between OVG, which had become a close partner to Live Nation, and TEG. So, in December 2021 when a TEG employee wrote to say that it did not intend to compete with Live Nation in the U.S., Rapino replied to Silver Lake’s management that he did not care about TEG, but still had a problem with Silver Lake’s decision to make multiple conflicting investments in the industry.”
The statement also claims that “there is no truth that this brief exchange had anything to do with Silver Lake’s decision to sell its stake in TEG.”
In addition to the allegations around TEG, the government’s complaint further alleges that OVG, when it was first founded in 2015, was “particularly well-suited to be a real competitor to Live Nation in the United States concert promotion business” but changed its model to avoid competing with Live Nation.
The evidence from the time, however, shows that OVG and Live Nation had long billed themselves as partners. A November 2015 press release announcing OVG’s launch includes a quote from Rapino endorsing Leiweke’s business model, stating, “Both Tim and Irving are friends of Live Nation as well as personal friends. The concept of creating an economic model for both arena’s and touring artists that creates new revenue streams and develops an ‘anchor’ type of platform for music is one we share.”
The DOJ claims that Live Nation initially identified OVG as one of its “Biggest Competitor Threats” but that over time, the two firms morphed “from competitors into partners who found it easier and mutually beneficial to work together rather than compete.”
According to the government, OVG in fact operates as “a self-described ‘pimp’ and ‘hammer’ for Live Nation, with Leiweke once telling Rapino ‘[j]ust like I tell our folks we 100% always protect you and LN on your lanes.’”
In 2016, “after learning that Oak View Group offered to promote an artist Live Nation had previously promoted, Live Nation’s CEO immediately emailed Oak View Group, warning that such competition would only lead to artists demanding more compensation,” reads the complaint. It further includes an email in which Rapino wrote of the artist: “Whats up? We have done his [touring] and vegas[.] Let’s make sure we don’t let [the artist agency] now start playing us off.”
As outlined in the complaint, Leiweke immediately responded, “Our guys got a bit ahead. All know we don’t promote and we only do tours with Live Nation.”
Azoff later chimed in, writing “Growing pains,” subsequently noting that OVG executives “should never discuss comp [for artists],” and that OVG’s talent buyers would work for Live Nation.
The government argues that this discussion is an example of Leiweke and Azoff colluding with Rapino to limit the competitive bids sent to an artist in order to keep artists fees low. In another example cited in the complaint from 2022, Rapino admonished Leweike for making a direct offer to an artist to play an OVG venue instead of asking Live Nation to promote the show for OVG.
“Who would be so stupid to do this and play into [the artist agent’s] arms”? Rapino asked Leiweke in the email. Leiweke responded, “We have never promoted without you. Won’t,” before later writing, “[m]ore than happy to do these deals thru LN as I have always been aligned,” and that “I never want to be competitors.”
The complaint also alleges that Live Nation “exploits its long-term relationship with Oak View Group to flip venues to Ticketmaster, further cementing Ticketmaster’s power.”
According to the DOJ, in 2022, Live Nation and OVG signed an unspecified agreement that resulted in OVG recognizing “it has a significant financial interest in maintaining existing Ticketmaster contracts at its venues and converting other venues to Ticketmaster.”
At some point, according to the lawsuit, Leiweke told Rapino that the deal “allows us to tie up all owned and operated facilities to 10 year deals, develop a standard A and B market deal for all future projects and to convert all OVG 360 deals to TM now or as they expire for 10 years… Appreciate the consideration and partnership and all of us will work diligently on this so we are always aligned with TM.”
Live Nation responded to this claim in a statement: “The theory is that the contract gave Ticketmaster an unfair advantage in securing the business of independent venues that were managed by OVG because it creates financial incentives for OVG to ‘advocate for’ Ticketmaster. But there is nothing remotely anticompetitive about that. Commercial arrangements that involve incentive or marketing payments are common throughout this industry (and many others).” The statement adds, “Ticketmaster competed and won the contract on the merits because OVG determined it was the best ticketing system available.”
Officials with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division plan to sue Live Nation after they wrap up a two-and-a-half-year investigation into the company, according to two high-level sources with knowledge of the matter.
The lawsuit will take aim at Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive venue contracts for its ticketing services, the sources say. Last week, Live Nation officials met with attorneys from the Department of Justice to discuss the case, including DOJ Assistant Attorney Jonathan Kanter, but neither the DOJ nor Live Nation commented on the meeting’s details. There’s no clear timeline on when the DOJ plans to officially close its investigation or file suit, and the two sides could meet again to discuss the case. Both The Wall Street Journal and Politico have previously reported that the DOJ planned to sue Live Nation in published reports earlier this year.
Live Nation officials are continuing to cooperate with the investigation, company president Joe Berchtold indicated on a May 2 earnings call. Based on the issues the DOJ has raised with Live Nation, Berchtold said he believes the lawsuit is related to “specific business practices at Live Nation” and “not the legality of the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger.”
Trending on Billboard
That’s both good and bad for Live Nation officials. On the one hand, if the merger isn’t central to the government’s case, then ending the merger and splitting the company up probably isn’t on the table — at least according to Berchtold. Alternatively, if the government believes that the company’s use of exclusive ticketing contracts with venues is monopolistic, it could propose an even harsher penalty.
That’s because politicians like Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who chairs the anti-trust subcommittee in the Senate, have zeroed in on Ticketmaster’s 70-80% market share of the top 100 highest-grossing theaters, arenas and stadiums in North America. Klobuchar has repeatedly said she believes Ticketmaster uses exclusive contracts to lock up market share. In contrast, Ticketmaster attorneys and industry advocates have argued before that the exclusive nature of these contracts benefits venues because it simplifies the ticket-buying process for consumers and generates important revenue for venues that they would not earn without an exclusive agreement.
DOJ officials are also expected to argue that Live Nation has illegally abused its power in the concert business to drive up ticket prices over the last decade, in part through additional fees that can add as much as 30% to ticket prices.
But officials from Ticketmaster, which Live Nation controls, have long argued that artists set their ticket prices, not Ticketmaster, and that only a small percentage of the fees collected above face value go to the ticketing company, with the vast majority of those funds going to venues to help cover the costs of a concert.
The government also bears the burden of proving why its proposed remedies — like forcing Live Nation to sell its stake in Ticketmaster — would benefit consumers.
Simply being named in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Kanter has the potential to significantly damage Live Nation reputationally and financially. A detailed lawsuit against it could galvanize the company’s critics behind a narrative that alleges the concert conglomerate acts monopolistically and abuses its power, undoing the company’s efforts in recent years to improve its image and destigmatize its business model.
A lawsuit will also likely have a negative impact on the company’s share price and serve as a major distraction for Live Nation when it would otherwise be focused on strategic expansion following its most successful fiscal year ever, with revenue up 36% from the previous year and an impressive $1.8 billion in adjusted net income.
Instead, Live Nation may face the full weight of America’s top law enforcement agency, which this year has taken on companies like Apple and Google with market capitalizations that are each 100 times larger than Live Nation’s. While Kanter’s efforts against these companies have been applauded by powerful allies including Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has vowed to “make antitrust sexy again,” Kanter’s efforts so far have been unsuccessful, with the DOJ losing the bulk of the major antitrust cases it has filed. In December 2022, a judge dismissed the DOJ’s efforts to block a merger between security firms Booze Allen Hamilton and Everwatch as well as mergers between UnitedHealth Group and Change Healthcare, U.S. Sugar Corp and Imperial Sugar, Meta and Within, and Microsoft and Activision.
Kanter also lost a major ruling in the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google earlier this year when a judge struck down a request to bar the tech giant from offering up evidence that activities the government had deemed anti-competitive also had positive qualities that improved the product and generated positive consumer feedback.
“If the government can tip the scales and prevent courts from considering pro-competitive effects, the government could win every case by default,” wrote Sean Heather, a senior vp at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a recent paper on the Google case.
The Google litigation, which deals with ongoing business practices at the company as opposed to a merger, could be a litmus test for a yet-to-be-filed Live Nation suit. In the Google case, the government alleges that the company controls 90% of the online search advertising market by paying out billions of dollars each year to companies like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their computers and smartphones.
While Live Nation officials are confident they can prevail in the looming antitrust case, they will do so with far fewer resources than other companies hauled before the Justice Department in recent years. Live Nation’s market cap currently sits at $22 billion, whereas Google and Apple’s combined market cap is $6.7 trillion, making Live Nation one of the smallest companies in recent decades to be the subject of such a lawsuit.
Live Nation declined to comment for this story. The Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.
A Taylor Swift fan who filed a class action against Ticketmaster parent Live Nation in the wake of last year’s disastrous presale of tickets to the Eras Tour has agreed to drop her case against the concert giant, months after attorneys on the case said they were engaged in settlement talks.
Swift fan Michelle Sterioff filed her case in December 2022 just weeks after the botched Eras rollout, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried – and many failed – to buy tickets. At the time, her lawyers blasted Live Nation as a “monopoly” that had “knowingly misled millions of fans.”
But a year later, Sterioff voluntarily asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss her case. It’s unclear if a settlement was reached, but the two sides reported in August that they were engaged in “ongoing settlement discussions.” Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Sterioff’s proposed class action was just one piece of the legal fallout for Live Nation following the error-plagued pre-sale for Eras, which went on the earn hundreds of millions of dollars and dominate headlines as 2023’s biggest concert tour.
After the Nov. 22, 2022 incident, Live Nation quickly apologized to fans and pinned the blame on a “staggering number of bot attacks” and “unprecedented traffic.” But lawmakers in Washington and state attorneys general around the country quickly called for investigations. That included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, who suggest that regulators consider “breaking up the company” – a reference to Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster.
Days after the incident, the New York Times reported that DOJ had already been investigating Live Nation for months over potential antitrust violations, reaching out to venues across the country to ask about the company’s conduct. Last month, Reuters reported that the probe was ongoing, with federal investigators focusing on whether Live Nation imposed anticompetitive agreements on venues. A Senate subcommittee investigation is also underway, sending out subpoenas last month demanding info about the company’s “failure to combat artificially inflated demand fueled by bots in multiple, high-profile incidents.”
Taylor Swift performs onstage for night three of Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour at Nissan Stadium on May 07, 2023 in Nashville.
John Shearer/TAS23/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management
Sterioff’s case was one of two major class actions filed against Live Nation over the Eras ticket rollout. In her complaint, she accused the company of violating consumer protection and antitrust laws, calling Ticketmaster a “monopoly that is only interested in taking every dollar it can from a captive public.”
“Because Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements with virtually all venues capable of accommodating large concerts, Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to sell their tickets through Ticketmaster, and their fans have no choice but to purchase tickets through Ticketmaster’s primary ticketing platform,” her lawyers wrote.
Sterioff’s lawsuit claimed that Live Nation has exploited that dominance to charge “ever more supracompetitive ticketing fees for both primary and secondary ticketing services,” including for “virtually all venues hosting ‘The Eras’ Tour.”
But the lawsuit has largely been paused for months. In August, both sides agreed that it would be better to wait to litigate the case after a federal appeals court rules on a separate antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation, which will decide whether the company can force ticketbuyers to resolve such legal claims in private arbitration rather than open court.
The other class action over the Eras debacle, filed by an outspoken fan named Julie Barfuss and more than two dozen other spurned Swifities, remains pending in California federal court. In her complaint, Barfuss went even further than Sterioff, claiming Live Nation had tacitly allowed the kind of mass-scalping that caused so many problems during the pre-sale.
“Ticketmaster has stated that it has taken steps to address this issue, but in reality, has taken steps to make additional profit from the scalped tickets,” Barfuss’ lawyer wrote. “Instead of competition, Ticketmaster has conspired with stadiums to force fans to buy more expensive tickets that Ticketmaster gets additional fees from every time the tickets are resold.”
A federal appeals court on Monday (Feb. 13) rejected an antitrust lawsuit accusing Ticketmaster and Live Nation of exploiting its “impregnable market power” to foist inflated prices on hundreds of thousands of fans, ruling that concertgoers forfeited their right to sue when they bought their tickets.
In a 24-page ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an earlier ruling that dismissed the proposed class action, saying that when the fans purchased their tickets, they had agreed to settle any disputes with Ticketmaster via private arbitration rather than in open court.
On appeal, attorneys for the plaintiffs had challenged the validity of that agreement, arguing it had not been presented clearly enough to customers. But in Monday’s decision, the appeals court was unswayed.
“At three independent stages — when creating an account, signing into an account, and completing a purchase — Ticketmaster and Live Nation webpage users are presented with a confirmation button above which text informs the user that, by clicking on this button, ‘you agree to our Terms of Use,’” Judge Danny J. Boggs wrote for a panel of three judges. “A reasonable user would have seen the notice and been able to locate the terms via hyperlink.”
The ruling came as Live Nation and Ticketmaster are facing heightened scrutiny over their market power in the wake of a disastrous November rollout of tickets to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour.
The incident, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes, has prompted calls from lawmakers in Washington D.C. to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, which merged to create their current structure in 2010. It has also spawned investigations from attorneys general around the country and at least two antitrust class actions. The DOJ is also reportedly investigating Live Nation for antitrust violations, though the probe predated the Swift tour debacle.
The case decided on Monday was filed back in 2020 but raised similar accusations to critics who have spoken out in the wake of the Swift incident. Aiming to represent “hundreds of thousands if not millions” of customers, the proposed class action alleged that Live Nation’s dominance allowed it to increase prices for consumers and perform other “predatory acts” — calling it a “monster” that “must be stopped.”
“Defendants’ anticompetitive scheme has been wildly successful and today threatens to put nearly all ticketing services for major concert venues (primary and secondary) in the United States under Ticketmaster’s monopolistic thumb,” the accusers wrote in their April 2020 complaint.
But the case was quickly tossed out. A federal judge ruled in 2021 that Live Nation and Ticketmaster users had clearly assented to a form of so-called clickwrap agreement — a common online tool that presents users with terms of service before proceeding — that required them to resolve any such claims against Live Nation via a private arbitration process.
Monday’s ruling upheld that decision for Live Nation. The appeals court said the company’s agreement was not the kind of “pure clickwrap” that offers users the clearest presentation of terms of service, but the court said it also was not “browsewrap” — a less effective form of user agreement where terms are “hidden in links located at the bottom of webpages.” Whatever the format, the appeals court said Live Nation’s version “did enough” to pass legal muster.
“Appellees’ notice is conspicuously displayed directly above or below the action button at each of three independent stages that a user must complete before purchasing tickets,” Judge Boggs wrote for the court. “Crucially, the ‘Terms of Use’ hyperlink is conspicuously distinguished from the surrounding text in bright blue font, making its presence readily apparent.”
The ruling will effectively end the current case, but a second similar lawsuit against Live Nation (filed by the same team of attorneys from the law firm Quinn Emmanuel) based on slightly tweaked allegations is still pending in a lower federal court.
Both a representative for Live Nation and an attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
The Justice Department and eight states sued Google on Tuesday, alleging that its dominance in digital advertising harms competition as well as consumers and advertisers — including the U.S. government.
The government alleges that Google’s plan to assert dominance has been to “neutralize or eliminate” rivals through acquisitions and to force advertisers to use its products by making it difficult to use competitors’ products.
The antitrust suit was filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference Tuesday that Google’s dominance in the ad market means fewer publishers are able to offer their products without charging subscription or other fees, because they can’t rely on competition in the advertising market to keep ad prices low.
As a result of Google’s dominance, he said, “website creators earn less and advertisers pay more.”
The department’s suit accuses Google of unlawfully monopolizing the way ads are served online by excluding competitors. This includes its 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick, a dominant ad server, and subsequent rollout of technology that locks in the split-second bidding process for ads that get served on Web pages.
Google’s ad manager lets large publishers who have significant direct sales manage their advertisements. The ad exchange, meanwhile, is a real-time marketplace to buy and sell online display ads.
The lawsuit demands that Google break off three different businesses from its core business of search, YouTube and other products such as Gmail: the buying and selling of ads and ownership of the exchange where that business is transacted.
Garland said that “for 15 years, Google has pursued a course of anti-competitive conduct” that has halted the rise of rival technologies and manipulated the mechanics of online ad auctions to force advertisers and publishers to use its tools.
In so doing, he added, “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct” that has “severely weakened,” if not destroyed competition in the ad tech industry.
Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, said in a statement that the suit “doubles down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”
Dina Srinivasan, a Yale University fellow and adtech expert, said the lawsuit is “huge” because it aligns the entire nation — state and federal governments — in a bipartisan legal offensive against Google.
This is the latest legal action taken against Google by either the Justice Department or local state governments. In October 2020, for instance, the Trump administration and eleven state attorneys general sued Google for violating antitrust laws, alleging anticompetitive practices in the search and search advertising markets.
The lawsuit in essence aligns the Biden administration and new states with the 35 states and District of Colombia that sued Google in December 2020 over the exact same issues.
The states taking part in the suit include California, Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee.