Listen to this article
Summary
- Federal judge denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit.
- The lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, 39 states, and Washington, D.C., in May 2024.
- The case accuses Live Nation of monopolizing ticketing, concert-booking, venues and promotions.
A federal judge on Feb. 18 rejected Live Nation Entertainment’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the federal government and many U.S. states accusing the company of illegally trying to dominate the live concert industry.
The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian cleared the way for a possible antitrust trial in Manhattan federal court, with jury selection scheduled to begin on March 2.
While dismissing some claims, Subramanian said “there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Live Nation has used monopoly power to foreclose competition.”
Shares of the Beverly Hills, California-based company traded 1.9% lower in after-hours trading following the decision, recouping much of an earlier 7% decline.
The May 2024 lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice, 39 states, and Washington, D.C., accused Live Nation of monopolizing markets for ticketing, concert-booking, venues and promotions, harming fans as well as performers.
Fans and politicians had long urged regulators to reexamine Live Nation’s 2010 purchase of Ticketmaster.
They intensified their demands after Ticketmaster subjected Taylor Swift fans to high prices and hours-long online queues for her 2022 “Eras” tour.
Subramanian said the government plaintiffs can try to prove that Live Nation improperly tied use of its amphitheaters to concert promotion services, and illegally dominated the market for ticketing services to major concert venues.
He also said states can try to seek damages for ticket-buying fans, saying it was “reasonably foreseeable” that fans might have been harmed and that Live Nation’s antitrust-injury challenge “falls flat.”
Subramanian dismissed claims related to concert promotions, and concert-booking services at major venues.
“With those claims gone, we see no possible basis for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster,” Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. “We look forward to addressing the remaining claims at trial.”
In seeking a dismissal, Live Nation denied exercising monopoly power and said there was no evidence its conduct harmed “consumer welfare,” such as by raising prices or reducing quality. It also said states lacked legal authority to sue on behalf of fans.
Live Nation has separately requested that Subramanian limit next month’s trial to claims by the state plaintiffs, and address Justice Department claims separately. The judge has yet to rule on that request.
