Jury finds Live Nation, Ticketmaster committed antitrust violations 

MANHATTAN (CN) — A federal jury on Wednesday found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable for antitrust violations, concluding a sprawling Sherman Act case that took on perhaps the two biggest names in live events.

The vertically integrated companies were accused by 34 states of being “monopolists” who used dominant market shares in both U.S. amphitheaters and primary ticketing to strong-arm artists and venues into doing business with them. The result, according to the states, was less competition and higher per-ticket prices for fans.

It was a clean sweep for the suing states. After four days of deliberating, the jury of nine New Yorkers reached a unanimous verdict, ruling against Live Nation and Ticketmaster for each of the violations of which they were accused.

The jury agreed that Ticketmaster wielded a monopoly over live event ticketing, causing anticompetitive effects in that market. It also agreed that Live Nation monopolized large amphitheaters throughout the country, and that the company unlawfully tied artists’ use of those venues to the use of its promotional services.

Jurors agreed with the states’ assessment that this behavior caused concertgoers to be overcharged for shows at a rate of $1.72 per ticket. Live Nation says that figure only applies to tickets sold at 257 venues in certain states over the past five years. As a result, the company expects the single damages figure to be less than $150 million, but that would be tripled in accordance with the federal antitrust statute.

“It’s a great day for antitrust law, it’s a great day for consumers,” the states’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn said outside of the courthouse on Wednesday. “This case is a tribute to the 34 states and the District of Columbia who carried this case forward. It was my great honor to be working together with them on this.”

The case will now enter a second phase aimed at determining remedies based on the jury’s verdict. Kessler declined to comment on what specific remedies the states may seek, but it’s possible they could ask Live Nation to divest its assets or seek its split from Ticketmaster.

Such relief would ultimately be decided by a judge, however, not a jury. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, who oversaw the proceedings, said one final goodbye to the jurors on Wednesday after six weeks of service.

“That is a long time to put your lives, your families, your careers on hold,” the Joe Biden appointee said. “There’s no award or medal for that sacrifice, but there should be.”

Live Nation said in a statement that “the jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” referencing this next phase of the proceedings. The company said it will soon renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law, and noted that it has a pending motion to strike the damages determination.

“Of course, Live Nation can and will appeal any unfavorable rulings on these motions,” the company added.

At trial, the states had claimed Live Nation owns, operates or exclusively books 78% of the 87 large amphitheaters in the country — control the company used as leverage over artists who hoped to tour in the outdoor venues.

“The artists who want large amphitheater tours have nowhere else to go,” Kessler argued at the trial’s closing.

Meanwhile, Live Nation pressured arena owners into using Ticketmaster as its primary ticketer by threatening to withhold profitable Live Nation-promoted concerts from those venues if they chose another option, the states argued. John Abbamondi, the former CEO of Barclays Center in Brooklyn, testified in March that Live Nation pulled a Billie Eilish show, among other concerts, from the arena after he decided to swap from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek.

“We saw a dramatic decline in shows booked at the arena,” Abbamondi said.

The states said this supposed retaliatory behavior was part of an anticompetitive scheme that allowed the companies to retain an unlawful monopoly, in which their clients overwhelmingly chose their products out of fear rather than merit.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster rebutted those claims in a weeklong defense case. Jurors saw depositions from several customers — including venue operators and music executives — who lauded the services of both Live Nation and Ticketmaster as the best choices in their respective markets.

Dave Brown, general manager of the American Airlines Center in Dallas, testified that Ticketmaster was an “innovative company.” Brandon Briggs, chief operating officer of the Inter Miami soccer team, commended its infrastructure as “the best technology for us and our organization.”

And Adel Nur, manager for hip-hop superstar Drake, testified the rapper’s nonexclusive partnership with Live Nation was “the single most important relationship in Drake’s career.”

The case was initially brought by the Department of Justice in 2024. But five days into the trial, the department suddenly announced it had settled with Live Nation and Ticketmaster for a $280 million deal that ordered several changes to the companies’ business models. As part of the deal, Live Nation consented to opening up some of its amphitheaters to other promoters and agreed not to tie artists’ use of its venues to them using Ticketmaster.

Unsatisfied with the settlement, 34 states, which had initially sued alongside the DOJ, continued the trial on their own.

“In the face of dwindling antitrust enforcement by the Trump Administration, this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip off Americans,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, part of the coalition, said in a statement Wednesday. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome — and especially proud of our coalition made up of red and blue states alike who understood we needed to come together to protect our consumers, businesses, and state economies from Live Nation’s illegal conduct.”

Live Nation said it remains “confident that the ultimate outcome of the States’ case will not be materially different than what is envisioned by the DOJ settlement.”

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social