Nearly two years after the US Department of Justice and a group of state attorneys general sued Live Nation Entertainment<\/a>, the case has finally reached a Manhattan courtroom.<\/p>\n Jury selection began Monday (March 2), with opening statements expected tomorrow.<\/p>\n The trial, expected to last five to six weeks<\/a>, will test whether the world\u2019s largest live entertainment company has illegally monopolized key parts of the concert industry \u2014 and whether the 2010 merger<\/a> that united Live Nation<\/a> and Ticketmaster<\/a> should be unwound.<\/p>\n But the case arriving at trial looks substantially different from the one filed in May 2024. Court rulings have narrowed the government\u2019s claims, the DOJ\u2019s antitrust leadership has been thrown into turmoil, and Live Nation tried, and failed, to avoid a jury altogether.<\/p>\n Here are three things to know as the trial gets underway.<\/p>\n Judge Arun Subramanian trimmed the government\u2019s case considerably in his February 18 summary judgment ruling<\/a>. He dismissed the claim that Live Nation monopolizes the national concert promotion market and threw out the allegation that its conduct has resulted in higher ticket prices for fans.<\/p>\n But what survived may matter more than what didn\u2019t. The jury will hear evidence on three core allegations: that Ticketmaster has monopolized primary ticketing at major concert venues through allegedly coercive, long-term exclusive contracts; that Live Nation illegally \u2018ties\u2019 access to its amphitheater network to its promotion services, effectively forcing artists who want to play Live Nation venues to hire Live Nation as their promoter; and that a specific ticketing agreement between Live Nation and Oak View Group is anticompetitive.<\/p>\n The judge found that the government \u201cplausibly paints a grim picture for new entrants\u201d and that Live Nation had \u201cvastly overstated\u201d the competitiveness of the ticketing market. On the tying claim, he wrote that \u201ca reasonable jury could certainly find that artists were coerced into going with Live Nation as their promoter to get into its amphitheaters.\u201d<\/p>\n Live Nation then launched a barrage of last-ditch motions: requesting reconsideration, seeking an interlocutory appeal, asking to bifurcate the trial, and challenging the states\u2019 damages expert. As MBW reported<\/a>, the DOJ called the delay bid a \u201cdesperate plea\u201d and argued it was \u201cstatutorily barred.\u201d<\/p>\n In a February 27 opinion (which you can read in full here), <\/a>Judge Subramanian denied all four motions in a single order.<\/p>\n He was particularly pointed on reconsideration: Live Nation had raised legal arguments it failed to present during summary judgment, including a novel claim that tying requires formal market definition for the tied product.<\/p>\n The judge conducted a thorough analysis of the precedent and concluded it does not, dismissing the out-of-circuit cases Live Nation cited as providing \u201clittle-to-no reasoning\u201d for their position.<\/p>\n 2. The DOJ\u2019s antitrust division is in turmoil \u2014 and Live Nation has been pushing for a settlement<\/h6>\n The trial is proceeding against a backdrop of political turmoil at the Justice Department.<\/p>\n On February 12, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater (pictured) \u2014 the head of the DOJ\u2019s Antitrust Division \u2014 resigned after the White House reportedly requested her departure<\/a>, less than a year into the role following a bipartisan Senate confirmation. Her top deputy, Mark Hamer, resigned shortly before that. Last week, one of the DOJ\u2019s trial lawyers on the case disclosed that he too is leaving.<\/p>\n Bloomberg <\/em><\/a>and Semafor<\/a> <\/em>reported in recent weeks\u00a0that Live Nation has been attempting to negotiate a settlement for months, with discussions taking place with DOJ officials outside the Antitrust Division \u2014 reportedly over Slater\u2019s objections. Those efforts have so far been rebuffed.<\/p>\n The political dynamics have drawn\u00a0scrutiny. A group of seven Democratic senators<\/a> led by Amy Klobuchar wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, warning that Live Nation may be \u201cattempting to evade responsibility by convincing Justice Department leadership to settle the case on terms favorable to the company.\u201d<\/p>\n Live Nation appointed Trump ally Ric Grenell to its board<\/a> last year, and a Trump-aligned attorney who has advised the company celebrated Slater\u2019s departure<\/a> on X, writing: \u201cGood riddance.\u201d<\/p>\n The state attorneys general, largely insulated from these federal dynamics, have made clear they will press ahead.<\/p>\n California AG Rob Bonta issued a statement<\/a> arguing that Live Nation \u201chas manipulated the market and made itself untouchable by any competitor \u2014 not because it is better, but because it has created a monopoly.\u201d<\/p>\n Since the lawsuit was filed, the headline outcome has always been the potential forced separation of Live Nation<\/strong> and Ticketmaster<\/strong> \u2014 an unwinding of the 2010 merger that the government now\u00a0seeks to reverse.<\/p>\n That remedy remains technically on the table, but its prospects have narrowed.<\/p>\n The dismissal of the concert promotion monopoly claim weakens the government\u2019s narrative that Live Nation\u2019s vertical integration across ticketing and promotion is itself the competitive problem. Live Nation\u2019s EVP of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Dan Wall, seized on this in a since-deleted<\/a> blog post titled \u2018It\u2019s Time to Move On<\/a>.\u2019 He argued that the dismissal of the concert promotion claims \u201cundermines any serious argument for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster\u201d and \u201cends the narrative that concert promotion and ticketing are \u2018mutually reinforcing monopolies\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n But the vertical integration theory hasn\u2019t disappeared entirely. The surviving tying claim, that Live Nation allegedly leverages its amphitheaters to coerce artists into its promotion services, still rests on the interplay between the company\u2019s venue, promotion, and ticketing businesses. If the jury finds that this conduct is anticompetitive, a judge could still conclude that structural separation is the appropriate remedy.<\/p>\n Under the trial structure, the jury will determine liability and any damages owed to the states on behalf of consumers. If the government prevails, Judge Subramanian would then separately decide the remedy \u2014 including whether to order a breakup.<\/p>\n If Live Nation is found liable, the states are seeking financial compensation on behalf of fans who were allegedly overcharged. Their damages expert, Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz, has built a model using AXS<\/a>,\u00a0 the next largest primary ticketing company, as a benchmark for what pricing might look like in a competitive market.<\/p>\n According to Judge Subramanian\u2019s February 27 ruling, her analysis works in two steps: first, she calculates how much more Ticketmaster charges venues than AXS does, what she calls the \u2018supracompetitive charge,\u2019\u00a0 then uses a tax-incidence model to estimate how much of that overcharge venues pass on to fans through higher ticket fees.<\/p>\n The February 27 ruling upheld the admissibility of her model, though the judge noted that the final calculation of total damages, accounting for purchaser residency, applicable statutes of limitations, and other variables, may be addressed in a post-trial proceeding rather than put to the jury.<\/p>\n The trial will feature testimony from a parade of music industry figures. Witness lists include Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino<\/a>, Live Nation president Joe Berchtold, SeatGeek CEO Jack Groetzinger, AEG Presents<\/a> CEO Jay Marciano, Roc Nation\u2019s Desiree Perez, and Mumford & Sons\u2019 Ben Lovett. Kid Rock \u2014 who told a Senate hearing in January that the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger \u201chas failed miserably\u201d \u2014 is among the few performing artists cited in court filings, though he is currently working with Live Nation for his latest tour.<\/p>\n Whatever the outcome, the trial itself marks a significant moment, and its implications will extend well beyond ticketing, touching on how vertical integration, exclusive dealing, and market power are understood across the entertainment industry.<\/p>\n The question now is whether the government, despite its internal upheaval, can make its case stick.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Reservoir (Nasdaq: RSVR) is a publicly traded, global independent music company with operations across music publishing, recorded music, and artist management.<\/b> <\/span><\/a>Music Business Worldwide<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u2018 The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties \u2019 <\/em><\/p>\n \u2018 Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.musicbusinessworldwide.com \u2019 <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" MBW Explains is a series in which we dig behind the headlines, via data and context, to improve your understanding of key stories. Only MBW+ subscribers have unlimited access to these articles. MBW Explains is supported by Reservoir. Nearly two years after the US Department of Justice and a group of state attorneys general sued […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2309441,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":[],"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_social_meta":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[25179],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2309440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-music"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Live-Nation-Antitrust-Trial-3-things-to-know-as-landmark.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2309440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2309440"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2309440\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2309442,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2309440\/revisions\/2309442"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2309441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2309440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2309440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2309440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}1. The government\u2019s case has been narrowed \u2014 but its most potent claims survived<\/h6>\n
\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/files\/2026\/03\/Screenshot-2026-03-02-at-15.24.24-80x100.jpg)
3. The DOJ wants to force a breakup, but that outcome is far from certain<\/h6>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/files\/2023\/08\/MPU-80x67.png)