Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Key Allegations
A federal judge in New York has denied Live Nation Entertainment Inc.’s request to limit the scope of the antitrust case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The case seeks to break up Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. from Live Nation, following their 2010 merger.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian issued a seven-page ruling rejecting Live Nation’s attempt to dismiss claims that it forced artists to use its promotion services to perform at its venues. State attorneys general can continue pursuing damages for alleged harm to consumers.
Figure 1: Live Nation’s Bid Rejected
DOJ Accuses Live Nation of Monopoly Practices
The DOJ and 30 states sued Live Nation last year, alleging illegal monopolisation of the live events industry. The lawsuit claims the company controls over 265 concert venues in North America and manages more than 400 musical artists. Live Nation dominates at least 80% of major venues’ ticketing for concerts.
Live Nation has denied wrongdoing and argued that it operates within legal boundaries. The company claimed it has no obligation to allow rival promoters to use its venues.
Judge Rules Tying Allegations Are Plausible
Live Nation sought to dismiss a claim related to “tying,” where a company uses power in one market to force customers into another service. The judge ruled that the complaint states a “plausible tying claim.”
“These allegations aren’t just about a refusal to deal with rival promoters, they are about the coercion of artists,” Subramanian wrote.
The judge pointed to evidence that Live Nation allegedly requires artists to use its promotion services if they want to perform at its venues. The court will now allow these claims to proceed.
State Attorneys General Allowed to Pursue Damages
The judge also ruled that state attorneys general can continue their claims on behalf of residents. The complaint alleges Live Nation engaged in exclusionary practices to maintain its monopoly over primary-ticketing services, leading to consumer harm through overpricing.
“The thrust of the complaint is that Live Nation engaged in a variety of exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly over primary-ticketing services, and consumers suffered injury by using those services and getting overcharged,” Subramanian wrote.
Live Nation’s Defence Rejected
Live Nation argued that artists work through intermediaries, such as rival promoters, to rent amphitheatres. The company claimed no legal obligation to deal with rival promoters. The court rejected this argument, stating the allegations go beyond a refusal to deal and include coercion tactics.
DOJ Continues Push Against Major Corporations
The lawsuit is one of five major monopolisation cases led by the DOJ’s antitrust unit. Other cases include two against Alphabet Inc.’s Google, one against Apple Inc., and another against Visa Inc.
Antitrust regulators have increased their scrutiny of large corporations accused of using their dominance to limit competition. The DOJ argues that breaking up Ticketmaster from Live Nation could restore fair competition in the live events industry.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster Face Longstanding Criticism
Live Nation and Ticketmaster have faced scrutiny from concertgoers and regulators for years. Antitrust authorities allowed their merger in 2010 under a settlement agreement with conditions. The DOJ argues the agreement “failed to restrain Live Nation and Ticketmaster from violating other antitrust laws in increasingly serious ways.”
Concertgoers and artists have long criticised Ticketmaster’s high fees and lack of alternatives in ticket sales. Some industry analysts believe that the DOJ’s case could lead to a restructuring of the live entertainment market.
Trial Scheduled for March 2026
The case will proceed to trial in March 2026. The DOJ plans to hold an initial trial to determine whether Live Nation violated the law. A separate trial may follow to decide on remedies if necessary.
The outcome of the trial could have a significant impact on the future of the live events industry. If the DOJ succeeds, Live Nation may face structural changes or even a breakup.
The case is US v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc., 24-cv-03973, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
