Live nation
Page: 4
On Friday (May 31), AEG chairman/CEO Jay Marciano became the first major live music executive to voice support for the Department of Justice’s effort to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, foreshadowing the role AEG will likely play as a key witness in the DOJ’s antitrust case against Ticketmaster.
“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,” Marciano wrote in a memo to staff May 30. Beyond its longstanding criticism that Live Nation uses its scale to overpay for talent, AEG doubled down on its attacks on Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive ticketing contracts, with Marciano telling staff that AEG and its attorneys “strongly believe that DOJ’s lawsuit will succeed and ultimately bring sweeping changes” to the live music industry.
The government interviewed dozens of Live Nation’s competitors during its two-year anti-trust investigation, including AEG — executives at AEG have met with DOJ investigators on at least three separate occasions, including a 2023 meeting to discuss the crash of the ticket presale for Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour, which AEG promoted through its joint venture with Louis Messina.
Trending on Billboard
That puts Marciano and AEG in a rare position to galvanize public opinion and build support for his call to staff and the larger music community to help “us lay the groundwork now for the future of the industry.”
But AEG’s claims aren’t as compelling as Marciano thinks, according to Live Nation executive vp of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall, who responded to Marciano’s May 30 letter with a statement alleging AEG is trying to use Live Nation’s antitrust case “to advance their own interests.”
“AEG supports this case — indeed, begged DOJ to file it — because it doesn’t want to pay artists market rates or convince venues to adopt its second-rate ticketing system exclusively,” Wall said in a statement provided to Billboard after Marciano’s statement was released.
AEG declined to comment for this story.
The battle between Live Nation and AEG dates back to the federal government’s 2010 approval of Live Nation’s merger with Ticketmaster, which the government approved by imposing a number of conditions on Ticketmaster designed to increase competition. As part of those conditions, referred to as the consent decree, the DOJ required Ticketmaster to license its source code and technology to AEG to create a competing ticketing service. The government did not address some of Ticketmaster’s more controversial tactics at the time, like the use of exclusive contracts to lock venues into long-term deals, which lies at the heart of this current conflict.
AEG only licensed Ticketmaster’s technology for a year, and in 2011 announced it was instead building a new ticketing platform called AXS with the help of Montreal firm Outbox ticketing. It took two years to switch all of AEG’s venues globally to AXS Tickets, and then AEG struggled to sign on new clients, even after merging with Veritix in 2015, and in 2019 ended up losing a major client — Altitude Sports and Entertainment — to a startup called Rival launched by former Ticketmaster CEO Nathan Hubbard.
AXS’ struggles were due in part to its ownership structure following the 2015 merger with Veritix, which divided ownership among AEG, private-equity firm TPG and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, who previously owned Veritix. In 2019, AXS’ partners began exploring a sale of the company and looked at buying Rival or being bought by Rival, deals AEG blocked thanks to AXS’ ownership rules that required unanimous consent for all material decisions. AEG also blocked a merger between AXS and CTS Eventim, a powerful European ticketing provider that was looking for an entry point in the U.S. market to compete with Ticketmaster.
Gilbert and TPG eventually agreed to sell their stakes in AXS to AEG in 2019, which by then had started to explore a new business model for the ticketer, built around non-exclusive ticketing contracts. Instead of competing with Ticketmaster to sign venues to AXS, AEG would instead focus on expanding its use of AXS ticketing for AEG-promoted tours. Both Live Nation and AEG prefer to use their own ticketing platforms for the concerts they promote because it allows the promoters to directly control the customer data.
Hoping to encourage Ticketmaster to allow AEG to use AXS whenever it brought tours to buildings ticketed by Ticketmaster, AEG offered to allow Live Nation to use Ticketmaster at the venues AEG controls, including the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles.
AEG would extract a similar concession from Live Nation in 2021 that would earn a mention in the DOJ’s lawsuit against Ticketmaster. On June 15 of that year, leading venue operations company ASM Global, in which AEG owned a minority stake, announced it had renewed its agreement with Ticketmaster to provide ticketing services for a majority of the 300 venues ASM manages.
The government flagged the agreement as suspicious because AEG at the time owned 30% of ASM and had “advocated for AXS to serve as the exclusive primary ticketer for the ASM Global venues,” the complaint reads. “But ASM Global’s majority shareholder, Onex, worried that Live Nation would retaliate by withholding shows from ASM Global venues if ASM Global entirely switched away from using Ticketmaster.”
A source close to the deal called the DOJ’s version of the story an “oversimplification,” noting that AEG and Onex didn’t have the right to require ASM Global clients to use one ticketing system over the other and that the majority of clients opted to stay with Live Nation. ASM did, however, convince Live Nation to grant a rare exception to its venue contracts, allowing ASM venues contracted to Ticketmaster to switch to AXS tickets for any tours AEG brought to the buildings.
In exchange, Ticketmaster paid a large advance for the multiyear contract and issued a press release, quoting ASM Global president/CEO Ron Bension saying, “Aligning with industry leaders like Ticketmaster is a critical component in providing millions of people with the most seamless and secure live experiences.”
Happy to have secured the largest carve-out in Ticketmaster’s exclusivity contract to date, AXS decided to push for more exceptions. In 2022, AEG began routing Swift’s The Eras Tour alongside its partner, Messina Touring Group. The majority of the venues on the tour were Ticketmaster-exclusive facilities, though ASM managed five of the stadiums, representing 12 shows on the 52-date trek. But two of those dates — a pair of concerts at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. — would be ticketed by SeatGeek under its exclusive deal with the Arizona Cardinals. Making matters worse, two of ASM’s management clients decided to partner with Ticketmaster for the sale.
Down to just five shows at two stadiums, AEG dropped the matter, but not before reporting the issue to the DOJ, encouraging them to look at Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive contracts as anti-competitive.
After the fiasco, Live Nation chairman Greg Maffei appeared on CNBC to defend Ticketmaster and claim “AEG, who is the promoter for Taylor Swift, chose to use us because, in reality, we are the largest and most effective ticket seller in the world,” he said. “Even our competitors want to come on our platform.” AEG leadership was quick to respond. “Ticketmaster’s exclusive deals with the vast majority of venues on The Eras Tour required us to ticket through their system,” the leadership said in a statement, adding, “We didn’t have a choice.”
In the months following, AEG’s relationship with Live Nation only worsened. In January 2023, AEG announced it was backing a U.S. tour for chart-topping singer Zach Bryan who had just released a live album called All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster. The album title succinctly encapsulated decades of anti-Ticketmaster sentiment from music fans over Ticketmaster fees, pricing and indignities and AEG was eager to get in early. With AEG as his promoter, Bryan embarked on an expansive tour of non-Ticketmaster buildings, a gambit that hadn’t been attempted since Pearl Jam in the 1990s. AEG even deployed a sophisticated anti-scalping system to keep tickets out of the hands of scalpers.
Despite the tour’s success, Bryan had reached a surprising conclusion about the experience — some of his homies hated AXS tickets too.
“Everyone complained about AXS last year. Using all ticketing sites this year,” he said of his 2023 Quittin’ Time Tour, which was still being promoted by AEG but would no longer route around Ticketmaster buildings and would play all venues, regardless of which company was the ticketer.
“All my homies still do hate Ticketmaster, but hard to realize one guy can’t change the whole system,” Bryan wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “It is intentionally broken and I’ll continue to feel absolutely horrible about the cost of tickets.”
In his written response to Marciano’s letter, Wall, a former litigator for Live Nation who helped architect the 2010 consent decree, says AEG is now trying to use the legal system to compete against Ticketmaster instead of focusing on improving AXS.
Marciano contends that there are many things that the DOJ can do to level the playing field and ended his letter by encouraging his employees not to “get distracted by Live Nation spin” and instead to “prepare for a world with more competition, more innovation, artist and consumer choice, lower ticketing fees, and more music.”
Live music experts are anticipating the antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against Live Nation to take years to resolve, given the wide scope of the claims against the concert giant and the various stakeholders in the live music ecosystem.
“It is going to take a couple of years, at least,” Lee Hepner, senior counsel of anti-monopoly group the American Economic Liberties Project, said at the NIVA 2024 conference in New Orleans on Tuesday (June 4). The conference is put on by the National Independent Venue Association, which formed in 2020 to secure federal funding from the government during the pandemic. The upside, for Hepner and other speakers on the panel called Ticket Tyranny: The Unseen Grip of Market Dominance, is the “massive potential in restructuring the industry.”
Ant Taylor, founder and CEO of ticketing competitor Lyte, agreed on Tuesday saying, “Given how big the scope [of the DOJ lawsuit] is, it is going to be challenging to see it through… What excites me about this moment is the opportunity we have as an ecosystem to look — not just at Live Nation — but to look at the way we do business together and the conditions in which Live Nation has thrived.”
Trending on Billboard
Specifically, Taylor added, “What’s the business model of ticketing and why, for 40 years, has there been so little innovation around it?”
Ticketmaster has been a dominate force in the ticketing business for decades — its 2010 merger with Live Nation only strengthened its position in the U.S. market. The DOJ lawsuit claims that Live Nation-Ticketmaster has “unlawfully maintained monopolies in several concert promotions and primary ticketing markets and engaged in other exclusionary conduct affecting live concert venues, including arenas and amphitheaters.” A major concern for the DOJ and the group of 30 states that jointly filed the suit on May 23 is Live Nation’s “flywheel model,” which the DOJ describes as a “self-reinforcing business model that captures fees and revenue from concert fans and sponsorship, uses that revenue to lock up artists to exclusive promotion deals, and then uses its powerful cache of live content to sign venues into long term exclusive ticketing deals, thereby starting the cycle all over again.”
Unlike the consent decree that Live Nation has been under since the merger, which was designed to prevent the company from abusing its position, Kevin Erickson, director of Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization Future of Music Coalition, told the audience that he believes the DOJ lawsuit is focusing on the correct parties impacted by the alleged monopoly: the artists, venues and fans.
“Even with the best intentions, a consent decree is inadequate to address the potential for harm,” Erickson said. “It shifts the enforcement burden onto the people who have the least amount of power. It forces artists and artist representatives and venue folks to monitor for violations of antitrust law.”
Hepner explained that Future of Music Coalition has been collecting such complaints against Live Nation for years and encouraged those in the room to reach out on how to connect with the DOJ with additional complaints as the lawsuit works its way through the justice system.
If the DOJ’s lawsuit is successful and Live Nation is forced to divest Ticketmaster, the panelists expressed hope that without the promoter’s financial backing, competition in ticketing will flourish, allow for innovation and end exclusive ticketing contracts often used by Ticketmaster and other major ticketers.
Panelist Gary Witt, president and CEO of Pabst Theater Group, stressed the importance of eliminating Ticketmaster’s dominance due to growing customer dissatisfaction. “It is not about your experience when the customer comes through the door. It is not about the artist’s experience when they come backstage. It’s about the initial experience of buying a ticket,” Witt said to the audience.
The primary ticketing market has become “a closed market and allows for zero innovation,” Witt said, adding, “We have an industry to save here.”
Artists at country singer-songwriter Ashley McBryde’s level of popularity can sell $16,000 to $20,000 worth of T-shirts and hoodies when they play 1,500-capacity venues. Layne Weber, director of merchandising and fan engagement for McBryde’s management company, Q Prime, says some venues took a 20% to 25% cut of her merchandise sales during her spring tour — which is standard in the industry but, he says, exorbitant for services rendered at many clubs. “I went to a show the other night and the merch table was next to the bar,” Weber says. “The merch seller was having to compete with the bartender who’s trying to sell the drinks. That was a venue taking 20% of the sales.”
Weber’s complaints, which many artists and their representatives share, are at the center of a long-running live-industry debate over merch percentages. For decades, artists, venues and promoters have haggled behind the scenes over percentages as part of every show contract, but they contend the stakes are now much higher. “Ever since we’ve come back from COVID, the merch numbers have gone through the roof for all genres of music,” says Crom Tidwell, owner of Crom Tidwell Merchandising in Nashville. And with so much money at stake, artists want a larger percentage of their own profits.
Trending on Billboard
“Bands are getting ripped off,” says Barry Drinkwater, executive chairman of Global Merchandising Services, which handles merch for top metal acts such as Iron Maiden and Guns N’ Roses. He adds that the venue’s cut particularly hurts small acts, which tour on slimmer margins and often operate their own merch tables. “They need the money that gets them food, gets them to the next show,” he says. “Then the promoter wants to charge them 20% of the gross.”
Live Nation has expressed sympathy for this point of view. Last fall, trumpeting an endorsement from Willie Nelson, the world’s biggest concert promoter unveiled its On the Road Again program, which eliminates merch-selling fees for artists at its clubs and provides a per diem of $1,500 in gas and travel cash for artists, among other benefits. Earlier this year, Live Nation president/CEO Michael Rapino told Billboard that the program had “already helped support 3,000 developing artists,” and a statement that Live Nation issued on May 22 said, “We’re incredibly proud of how On the Road Again is supporting thousands of artists and their crews, with 100% merch profits, $1,500 cash nightly for gas and travel costs and more. Developing artists are the future of live music, and we’re proud to keep this program rolling strong.”
Complaints over merch fees are not limited to clubs, however. At arenas, stadiums and other large venues, in-house concessions staff take over merch sales, and the 20% to 25% cut goes largely to these services. And at least one venue takes an even bigger chunk. Drinkwater says New York’s Madison Square Garden (MSG) charges artists 30% of their merch sales, plus credit card fees. He also notes that percentages can be higher in the United Kingdom. (A representative for the Garden declined to comment.)
Whether artists are handling their own merch tables or relying on in-house staffers, managers say they’re often unsatisfied with the services they get, given the cost.
“I don’t feel they’re worth 25% of the revenue,” says Rick Sales, who manages Slayer, Ghost, Mastodon and others. “It’s not good value for the money spent.”
Venue reps counter that long before fans step into their buildings, they negotiate deals with artists, including merch percentages. Not surprisingly, those with leverage receive favorable terms. “Every live performance is a negotiation,” a concert-business source says. “The band doesn’t like the merch percentage, find somewhere else to play.” Venue consultant Brock Jones, the former GM of Nashville’s Bridgestone Arena, adds: “At the end of the day, venues have got to make money, too — electricity isn’t free, all that space isn’t free. Venues have to recoup those expenses. An 80/20 merch deal is absolutely fair when the venue is selling.”
Tidwell agrees that it’s a different story at arenas, which often are required to staff union employees at fixed salaries. “You’ve got to have a crew to facilitate the sales,” he says. “Somebody has to pay for the help.” But he also contends that artists complaining about high venue percentages in small venues have a point: “What are you doing for your 20%? You’re just providing a lobby and a table.”
Some small venues, still reeling from the pandemic, have expressed concern that Live Nation’s On the Road Again program might pressure them into following suit and giving up a crucial revenue source. “Temporary measures may appear to help artists in the short run but actually can squeeze out independent venues, which provide the lifeblood of many artists on thin margins,” the National Independent Venue Association said in a statement in September.
Arenas and stadiums are where the big merch money is. On her The Eras Tour last year, Taylor Swift made a reported $200 million on T-shirts and other goods sold at shows. In its 2023 financial report, Live Nation claimed “double-digit growth” in merch and concessions at the arenas it owns or operates, such as the Moody Center in Austin. Notably, the On the Road Again program does not apply to large venues. Drinkwater says the standard 20% to 25% cut applies and, like MSG, sometimes venues pass on credit card fees (usually 5%) to the artist. “We try with our artists to beat this down,” he says. “Sometimes we get a reduction if we can do big sales.”
Earlier this week, hackers on a “dark web” site claimed to have stolen data from hundreds of millions of Ticketmaster user accounts — but a source with knowledge of the investigation into the attack says there is no evidence that Ticketmaster fan accounts were compromised or that private user data was stolen.
Officials at Ticketmaster’s parent company, Live Nation, acknowledged a breach Friday (May 31) in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, noting it had identified “unauthorized activity within a third-party cloud database environment containing Company data (primarily from its Ticketmaster L.L.C. subsidiary) and launched an investigation with industry-leading forensic investigators to understand what happened.”
The statement noted that the company was “cooperating with law enforcement” and that “as of the date of this filing, the incident has not had, and we do not believe it is reasonably likely to have, a material impact on our overall business operations or on our financial condition or results of operations.”
Trending on Billboard
According to the source, federal authorities are currently working to understand how a “dark web” site seized by the federal government was recaptured on Monday (May 27) by hackers with the group ShinyHunters and used to ransom 1.3 terabytes of private data allegedly stolen from Ticketmaster for $500,000. Investigators aren’t sure what, if any, Ticketmaster files are being held in the 1.3 terabyte file, the source adds.
The hack, the source tells Billboard, did not involve a breach of the core Ticketmaster system. Rather, company officials are looking at cloud hosting service Snowflake as a possible site of the hack. A hacker claiming to be involved in the attack told the website Bleeping Computer that they had breached Santander Bank and Ticketmaster after hacking into an employee’s account at Snowflake, which provides cloud hosting services for major companies. According to that report, Snowflake is disputing the claim. Billboard independently confirmed that Ticketmaster uses Snowflake’s cloud hosting service.
When reached for comment, Live Nation directed Billboard back to the SEC filing. Snowflake did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Australian ticketing firm Ticketek also reported Friday that it had fallen victim to hackers, notifying customers that the names of some of its users, as well as their dates of birth and email addresses, may have been accessed in a data breach. In a statement on its site, Ticketet said the user information had been stored in a cloud-based platform hosted by a “reputable, global third-party supplier”.
“Ticketek has secure encryption methods in place for all passwords and no Ticketek customer account has been compromised,” company officials said in a statement. “Additionally, Ticketek utilises secure encryption methods for online payments and uses a separate system to process online payments, which has not been impacted. Ticketek does not hold identity documents for its customers.”
Live Nation’s share price has proven to be resilient following the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit and effort to break up the company’s concert promotion and ticketing operations. Eight days into what is likely to be a multi-year journey through the court system, shares of Live Nation dropped 2.3% to $93.74 and have held steady after an initial drop the day of the DOJ’s announcement.
Live Nation shares closed at $101.40 on May 22, the day before the DOJ announced its lawsuit, and dropped 7.8% to $93.48 when the news broke the following day. Since the announcement, however, Live Nation shares are up 0.3%. Still, amidst the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the lawsuit, Live Nation’s year-to-date gain has been pared to just 0.1%, while its 52-week gain has been reduced to 13.2%.
Regardless of the outcome, the mere existence of a protracted legal battle is enough to exert a drag on the stock. In lowering their price target for Live Nation to $116 from $126 this week, J.P. Morgan analysts said in a Wednesday (May 29) note to investors they doubt the DOJ will succeed in breaking up the company and its Ticketmaster ticketing arm, but noted the effect of a “sentiment overhang.” J.P. Morgan maintains its “overweight” rating on Live Nation and analysts “believe that continued execution on [adjusted operating income] growth should drive shares higher, with significant valuation upside should developments in the lawsuit break positive.”
Trending on Billboard
Music stocks were broadly down this week as the biggest companies in the Billboard Global Music Index lost ground. The index fell 2.3% to 1,799.07 as Spotify fell 3.8% to $296.53, Universal Music Group dropped 0.9% to 28.58 euros ($31.03), Warner Music Group sank 2.2% to $29.78 and HYBE dipped 0.2% to 200,000 won ($144.60). Ten of the 20 companies in the index were losers this week, nine gained ground and one was unchanged.
The index has gained 17.9% year-to-date on the strength of music streaming companies. Tencent Music Entertainment and Spotify lead all stocks with gains of 60.4% and 57.8%, respectively, through the end of May. Elsewhere, Hipgnosis Songs Fund has gained 39.7% due to the company’s pending sale to Blackstone, German concert promoter CTS Eventim is up 26.8% and Chinese music streamer Cloud Music has gained 22.7%.
Radio company iHeartMedia has the distinction of being the top-performing music stock of the week while carrying the worst year-to-date performance. Shares of the radio giant rose 6.4% to $0.926, marking a respite from a month-long free fall during which the stock has traded below $1.00 per share over the last seven trading days. Even after this week’s gain, iHeartMedia finished the month of May down 56% and has lost 65.3% year to date.
Reservoir Media shares gained 2.4% to $8.04 this week following the company’s fiscal fourth-quarter earnings release on Thursday (May 30). The company beat guidance for both revenue and adjusted EBITDA and its share price rose as much as 15.5% in the wake of the news. Following the earnings results, B Riley raised its price target for Reservoir to $11.50.
Music streaming company LiveOne fell 6.3% to $1.65 this week after fiscal year results on Thursday showed the company’s revenue grew 19% to $118.4 million. LiveOne shares are up 17.9% year to date.
Overall stocks were broadly down this week but performed better than the Billboard Global Music Index. In the United States, the S&P 500 dropped 0.5% to 5,277.51 and the Nasdaq composite fell 1.1% to 16,735.02. In the United Kingdom, the FTSE 100 fell 0.5% to 8,275.38. South Korea’s KOSPI composite index sank 1.9% to 2,636.52. China’s Shanghai Composite Index declined just 0.1% to 3,086.81.
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.
A well-known hacking group claims to have breached Ticketmaster and is attempting to sell the personal data of 560 million Ticketmaster users, including their payment details, for $500,000, according to the website Hackread.
Alleged hacking group ShinyHunters has claimed credit for the break-in, resulting in the theft of 1.3 terabytes of stolen data that includes usernames, contact information, order info and partial payment details, like the last four digits of a customer’s credit card, expiration dates and even details designed to prevent fraud (i.e. mother’s maiden name).
Officials with Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, have not responded to requests for comment from Billboard or confirmed that the breach took place, but Australian officials with the country’s Department of Home Affairs told the Australian Broadcasting Company that it was aware of a cyber incident that was part of a data leak expected to impact millions of Ticketmaster customers globally.
Trending on Billboard
A spokesperson from the Department of Home Affairs told the ABC that the department is “working with Ticketmaster to understand the incident”.
“The data breach, if confirmed, could have severe implications for the affected users, leading to potential identity theft, financial fraud, and further cyber attacks,” the Hackread site explains. “The hacker group’s bold move to put this data on sale goes on to show the growing menace of cybercrime and the increasing sophistication of these cyber adversaries.”
The hack comes as Ticketmaster and Live Nation face attempts by the federal government to break the company up on antitrust grounds. Last week, the Department of Justice’s antitrust division sued Ticketmaster in New York’s Southern District, alleging that the company acted monopolistically. Company officials have vowed to fight the lawsuit.
ShinyHunters emerged on law enforcement’s radar in 2020 and has been linked to breaches affecting more than 60 companies. The group is known to use dark web forums to threaten to leak sensitive consumer information unless the affected companies pay an online ransom. Most breaches are carried out using sophisticated phishing pages that mimic their target’s login portals, tricking employees into entering account credentials and other sensitive data. Members of ShinyHunters then use the stolen credentials to log in to company systems and steal data and customer information.
In January, a U.S. District Court in Seattle sentenced alleged ShinyHunters member Sebastien Raoult to three years in prison and restitution of $5 million after Raoult pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The 22-year-old French national was arrested in Morocco in 2022 and extradited to the United States in January 2023.
ShinyHunters is reportedly selling the Ticketmaster data on Breach Forums, an illegal marketplace that just two weeks ago had been seized by the FBI.
On May 13, FBI officials apprehended the site’s administrator and seized access to login credentials for the entire infrastructure of Breach Forums, including the backend, across its dark web and clear web sites.
“From June 2023 until May 2024, BreachForums was operating as a clearnet marketplace for cybercriminals to buy, sell, and trade contraband, including stolen access devices, means of identification, hacking tools, breached databases, and other illegal services,” FBI official said in a statement at the time.
But several days later, ShinyHunters allegedly contacted the domain registrar of Breach Forums and successfully regained access, according to Hack News, with the FBI seizure notice on the site replaced by a “Site Temporarily Unavailable” message. Earlier today, Breach Forums was updated again, this time with the alleged stolen Ticketmaster data posted on the site for sale.
The one remaining wrongful death lawsuit filed after 10 people were killed during a deadly crowd crush at the 2021 Astroworld music festival has been settled, an attorney said Thursday.
Jury selection in the lawsuit filed by the family of 9-year-old Ezra Blount, the youngest person killed during the concert by rapper Travis Scott, had been set to begin Sept. 10.
But S. Scott West, an attorney for Blount’s family, said a settlement was reached this week.
Blount’s family had sued Scott, Live Nation — the festival’s promoter and the world’s largest live entertainment company — and other companies and individuals connected to the event, including Apple Inc., which livestreamed the concert.
Trending on Billboard
“The family will continue its journey to heal, but never forget the joy that Ezra brought to everyone around him,” West said in an email.
Treston Blount, Ezra’s father, had said that during the Nov. 5, 2021, concert, his son was sitting on his shoulders when they were crushed by the crowd. Treston Blount lost consciousness and when he came to, Ezra was missing. A frantic search ensued until Ezra was eventually found at a Houston hospital, severely injured. The boy, who was from Dallas, died several days later.
The lawsuit filed by Blount’s family was one of 10 wrongful death civil suits filed after the deadly concert.
Earlier this month, lawyers had announced that the other nine wrongful death lawsuits had been settled in connection with the concert.
Terms of the settlements in all 10 lawsuits were confidential.
The settlement of the lawsuit filed by Blount’s family was first reported by the Houston Chronicle.
Attorneys for Live Nation, Scott and others have declined to comment in the case because of a gag order that limits what they can say outside court.
About 2,400 injury cases filed after the deadly concert remain pending. More than 4,000 plaintiffs filed hundreds of lawsuits after the Astroworld crowd crush.
During the crowd crush, attendees were packed so tightly that many could not breathe or move their arms. Those killed ranged in age from 9 to 27. They died from compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car.
Earlier this month, state District Judge Kristen Hawkins, who is presiding over the litigation, had scheduled the first trial related to the injury cases for Oct. 15. That trial was set to focus on seven injury cases. It was not clear on Thursday if that trial date would remain or be moved up with the settlement in the Blount lawsuit.
So far, no lawsuit has gone before a jury. One wrongful death lawsuit — filed by the family of 23-year-old Houston resident Madison Dubiski — was days away from going to trial earlier this month before it was delayed and then settled.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the lawsuits have alleged in court filings that the deaths and hundreds of injuries at the concert were caused by negligent planning and a lack of concern over capacity and safety at the event.
Scott, Live Nation and the others who’ve been sued have denied these claims, saying safety was their No. 1 concern. They said what happened could not have been foreseen.
After a police investigation, a grand jury last year declined to indict Scott, along with five others connected to the festival.
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.”