<\/p>\n
Live Nation<\/a><\/strong> and Ticketmaster<\/a><\/strong> have asked a New York federal court to throw out the jury verdict that found the companies operated an illegal monopoly over concert ticketing.<\/p>\n If that request fails, they are asking US District Judge Arun Subramanian<\/strong> for a new trial.<\/p>\n The companies set out their final written arguments in reply briefs filed on Thursday (July 2<\/strong>), the last round of submissions before the judge rules on two post-trial motions.<\/p>\n The motions were filed on May 21<\/strong> in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York<\/strong>, and target an April 15<\/strong> verdict that has put the future of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster<\/strong> combination in question.<\/p>\n One motion, brought under Rule 50(b)<\/strong> of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asks the court to enter judgment as a matter of law for the companies on every claim \u2013 a ruling that would override the jury.<\/p>\n The second, under Rule 59<\/strong>, seeks a new trial should the first motion fail.<\/p>\n In the judgment brief, which you can read here<\/a>, Live Nation<\/strong> argues that the states secured what it calls \u201cthe first-ever jury trial in a government monopolization action,\u201d then won with \u201cmade-for-juries emotional arguments.\u201d<\/p>\n The states, the company says, want \u201cnothing more for this Court to do but rubberstamp the jury verdict\u201d \u2013 a position Live Nation<\/strong> calls \u201cwrong on the law, on the record, and on this Court\u2019s Rule 50(b) role.\u201d<\/p>\n In the new-trial brief, which you can read here<\/a>, Live Nation<\/strong> and Ticketmaster<\/strong> contend the verdict is \u201cagainst the weight of the evidence\u201d and was swayed by material that should never have reached the jury.<\/p>\n They point to testimony about the fees fans paid for parking and lawn-chair rentals, ticketing practices in Europe<\/strong>, and older conduct they say fell outside the case\u2019s limitations period.<\/p>\n Also in their sights is a phrase from a Live Nation<\/strong> document \u2013 \u201crobbing them blind baby\u201d \u2013 that the company says the states urged jurors to treat as proof of monopoly.<\/p>\n The April 15<\/strong> verdict followed a five-week trial in Manhattan, as reported by MBW<\/a>.<\/p>\n The jury found that Live Nation<\/strong> and Ticketmaster<\/strong> illegally monopolized primary ticketing at major US concert venues, and that they overcharged consumers by USD $1.72<\/strong> per ticket on sales between May 2020<\/strong> and 2024<\/strong>.<\/p>\n During closing arguments, the states\u2019 attorney Jeffrey Kessler<\/strong> told jurors that Live Nation<\/strong> is a \u201cmonopolistic bully\u201d that controls 86%<\/strong> of the ticketing market for major concert venues.<\/p>\n Live Nation<\/strong> attorney David Marriott<\/strong> countered that the company\u2019s success reflects the quality of its products, not illegal conduct, telling the court: \u201cWe are big. That is not against the laws in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n The case dates to May 2024<\/strong>, when the US Department of Justice<\/strong> sued the companies<\/a>, joined by attorneys general from dozens of states and the District of Columbia<\/strong>, over the 2010<\/strong> merger that united the promoter and the ticketing firm.<\/p>\n The trial began on March 2<\/strong>, after Judge Subramanian<\/strong> narrowed the government\u2019s case in a February 18<\/strong> summary judgment ruling.<\/p>\n A week into proceedings, the DOJ<\/strong> reached a settlement<\/a> that allowed Live Nation<\/strong> to keep Ticketmaster<\/strong>.<\/p>\n A coalition of 33<\/strong> states and the District of Columbia<\/strong> rejected that deal and pressed the case to a jury<\/a>.<\/p>\n