<\/p>\n
After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations<\/a>, the trial for the Department of Justice\u2019s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation is officially underway.<\/p>\n As part of its case, the DOJ has accused Live Nation of requiring artists to use its promotional services when they play a Live Nation-owned venue. Because so many venues are owned by the company, the government claims Live Nation\u2019s alleged practices are anti-competitive.<\/p>\n Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court and opening statements are expected Tuesday for the complaint first filed in 2024. Since then, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based company has been streamlined \u2014 examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anti-competitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster should be broken up.<\/p>\n The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over Sean Combs\u2019 sentencing last year<\/a>, at the helm. <\/p>\n Live Nation\u2019s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster CEO, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and entertainer Kid Rock could also take the stand.<\/p>\n The original lawsuit led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia alleged that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster<\/a> have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services. <\/p>\n The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages over 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and is also increasing its involvement in the resale market.<\/p>\n Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation\u2019s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.<\/p>\n The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The two companies merged in 2010<\/a>, a move that has frequently been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.<\/p>\n \u201cFor over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,\u201d Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement. <\/p>\n \u201cYet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,\u201d Brighton added.<\/p>\n Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims \u201cbaseless.\u201d<\/a> <\/p>\n \u201cCalling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,\u201d wrote Live Nation in a previous statement.<\/a> <\/p>\n If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation maintains the right to appeal such a decision, if it materializes, and take the matter to a higher court.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,\u201d Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Association, said in a statement. <\/p>\n \u201cThe relief must be proportionate to the harm,\u201d Parker added, \u201cand that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising\/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.\u201d<\/p>\nKey claims in the lawsuit<\/h2>\n
Next steps after the trial<\/h2>\n