A jury found Wednesday (April 15) that Live Nation and Ticketmaster violated federal and state antitrust laws by dominating the live music industry, capping off a blockbuster trial with a verdict that could ultimately see the two concert giants broken up.
After a five-week trial in Manhattan federal court, jurors sided with a coalition of state attorneys general who sued Live Nation, per Bloomberg. The states argued during closing statements that the concert giant was a “monopolistic bully” that had harmed competition and driven up ticket prices for fans.
In its verdict, the jury handed Live Nation a total defeat — finding that the company illegally monopolized the market for ticketing services, concert ticketing and the use of amphitheaters, and that it illegally tied the use of its venues to its concert promotion services. The jury said fans overpaid by $1.72 per ticket.
Following the verdict, all eyes will turn to Judge Arun Subramanian, who must now decide whether to order Live Nation to sell off Ticketmaster — something critics have long demanded and the states have said is the goal of their case. Such orders are drastic and rare, though, and the judge could instead merely ban certain anti-competitive conduct.
Live Nation is certain to challenge the outcome, first to Subramanian and then to a federal appeals court. Reps for both Live Nation and the states did not immediately return requests for comment.
The U.S. Department of Justice and dozens of states sued in 2024, 14 years after Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged with the blessing of federal antitrust regulators. The feds claimed the company had since grown into a monopoly that illegally dominated the live music industry: “It is time to break it up,” said then-attorney general Merrick Garland.
But a week after the trial started last month, DOJ agreed to a surprise settlement with Live Nation — a move that reportedly came after President Donald Trump personally pushed for it. The deal required key changes in business practices but, crucially, would not require the company to divest Ticketmaster. Following that, dozens of states said that settlement was insufficient, and instead pushed ahead with the trial.
Over five weeks of testimony, jurors heard from venue bosses like former Barclays Center CEO John Abbamondi, who claimed Live Nation threatened to divert concerts if he switched to rival ticketer SeatGeek. Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino later took the stand, where he denied such threats and said his company had simply outperformed its rivals to achieve its success: “I’m very proud.”
Jurors also heard from AEG Presents CEO Jay Marciano; current Barclays Center boss Laurie Jacoby; several other sports execs, promoters and venue operators; multiple Live Nation and Ticketmaster execs, like president of touring Omar Al-joulani; Drake’s manager Adel Nur, also known as Future The Prince; and numerous economists and other expert witnesses.
Live Nation, repped at trial by a team from the law firm Latham & Watkins, tried to persuade the jury that the company had secured its massive market share over the past 15 years not through anti-competitive behavior, but by simply being better than its rivals. During his closing statements, Live Nation attorney David Marriott called his client a “fierce competitor.”
But the states, led by veteran antitrust litigator Jeffrey Kessler, told the jury a very different story: that Live Nation and Ticketmaster had abused their position to enrich themselves at the expense of fans. They cited much-publicized Slack messages in which two Live Nation execs joked about “taking advantage” of “stupid” fans with prices and fees: “Robbing them blind baby. That’s how we do.”
“Who talks like this? What type of company uses this language?” Kessler asked the jury in closing statements on Thursday (April 9). “The answer, I think you will find, is a monopolist who views itself to be above the law.”
With Wednesday’s verdict, the jury showed that argument worked. It took them four days to deliberate, sifting through weeks of testimony and mountains of evidence submitted by both sides. As is typical with verdicts, there was no stated explanation for why the jurors sided with the states.
