Live Nation's Antitrust Verdict: What's Next for the Concert Industry Giant?
Following a jury's antitrust verdict against Live Nation, Billboard explores the potential consequences and what it means for the future of the concert industry.
As the dust settles on the jury's antitrust verdict against Live Nation, the music industry braces for potential shifts in the concert landscape. A New York jury has determined that Live Nation wields an unlawful monopoly impacting various facets of the concert business. However, the repercussions of this verdict are still unfolding.
The blockbuster verdict, delivered on Wednesday, April 15th, after a month-long trial and four days of jury deliberation, specifically addresses liability. Jurors were tasked with deciding whether Live Nation monopolized the primary concert ticketing market and unlawfully mandated that artists utilize its promotion services to perform at its amphitheaters. The jury's response was a resounding affirmation on all counts.
Live Nation is expected to request that U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian overturn the verdict and rule in its favor. Should the judge decline, the responsibility falls upon him to determine the practical implications of the ruling on Live Nation's future. This involves establishing a "remedy," which could entail the company paying financial damages and/or altering its business practices.
Critics of Live Nation, including the state attorneys general who pursued the trial, advocate for the forced divestiture of Ticketmaster. Their antitrust case hinges on the argument that Live Nation's control over both ticketing and artist promotion creates an unfair competitive advantage, specifically through the threat of withholding concerts from venues that don't use Ticketmaster as their primary ticketing service. The jury's verdict appears to support this argument.
Judge Subramanian could also permit Live Nation to retain Ticketmaster but require the company to divest other assets, such as certain amphitheaters it owns. Lauren Spahn, an entertainment partner at the law firm Buchalter, suggests that this approach could strategically "weaken [Live Nation and Ticketmaster] without completely killing the combined companies."
While judges possess the authority to break up companies, as demonstrated by the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, such orders have become less common in the modern legal system. For instance, in 2024, Google was found liable for monopolizing the online search market. However, when it came to remedies, a federal judge opted against ordering the forced divestiture of Google's Chrome browser or its Android operating system.
Instead, the judge in the Google case mandated that the tech giant modify its contracting practices and provide certain data to competitors. A similar outcome is possible in this case, with Judge Subramanian potentially ordering damages and implementing operational safeguards for Live Nation in place of a forced divestiture.
Such safeguards might include restricting Live Nation's use of exclusive ticketing contracts, capping fees, or requiring the company to open its amphitheaters to rival promoters. Live Nation has already agreed to implement many of these changes to its business practices and establish a $280 million payment fund as part of a proposed settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) reached shortly after the antitrust trial began. The company stated on Wednesday, "We remain confident that the ultimate outcome of the states’ case will not be materially different than what is envisioned by the DOJ settlement."
However, the settlement requires Judge Subramanian's approval, and several state attorneys general who initially sued Live Nation alongside the DOJ criticized the deal as too lenient before proceeding with the trial independently. This places Judge Subramanian in the challenging position of being asked by two sets of government agencies, who were once litigation partners, to both approve a settlement and order a more stringent structural remedy based on the same set of facts. Kenneth Dintzer, an antitrust partner at Crowell & Moring who spent 33 years at the DOJ, describes the situation as "unprecedented."
"Nobody’s ever seen something quite like this," Dintzer told Billboard. “So exactly how these cards are going to be shuffled is anybody’s guess.”
The process will likely be lengthy. It could take months, or even up to a year, for Judge Subramanian to gather all the necessary arguments and evidence to reach detailed decisions on both the settlement and a proposed remedy. Furthermore, Live Nation has stated that it "can and will appeal any unfavorable rulings," which could extend the proceedings for at least another year.
In other words, according to Spahn: "It’s going to take a while before anything trickles down to the consumer level."
Related Articles
Listen to Live Nation on Foxsoundi. Click here to listen!
Comments (0)
Login to comment