Live Nation Ticketmaster Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement and What It Means for Competition

by Matthew P. Suzor and Laura Twizere

Prior to the 2010 merger, Live Nation Entertainment was the largest producer, marketer, and seller of live concerts globally, controlling more than 75 concert venues in the United States, including most of the main amphitheaters and managed hundreds of the top artists including Miley Cyrus and Willie Nelson. Ticketmaster was the leading live entertainment ticketing and marketing company, controlling 80 percent of the market.

The two companies merged in 2010 under Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. after the signing of a 10-year consent decree with the Department of Justice, which barred the company from threatening to withhold concerts from venues that do not sign with Ticketmaster. This merger gave the company unrivaled global reach.

In 2019, the DOJ found that the Live Nation had repeatedly violated the consent decree over the years. The DOJ extended the decree for five and a half years and added new provisions. The new provision included an automatic penalty of $1,000,000 for each violation of the decree as well as the appointment of an independent monitor to investigate and report on Live Nations compliance.

In 2022, Ticketmaster’s failure during Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour ticket presale brought public and political scrutiny to the company over its operation practices. The failure involved massive site crashes for millions of pre-registered fans of whom many could not get tickets as scalpers took a large amount and resold them for extremely high prices. Many believed the incident highlighted the company’s poor service that was enabled by their monopolistic power prompting outcry to break them up.

In May 2024, the DOJ along with 30 state and district attorney generals filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York against Live Nation Entertainment Inc and Ticketmaster LLC. The Complaint alleged that Live Nation-Ticketmaster violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing markets and restricting competition across the live entertainment industry.

According to the allegations, Live Nation-Ticketmaster engaged in exclusionary practices through its self-reinforcing business model, which it refers to as a “flywheel.” Through this model, the company receives fees and revenue from fans and sponsorships then uses that revenue to lock up artists to exclusive promotion deals which are then used to make venues sign long-term exclusive ticketing contracts, letting the cycle begin again. The lawsuit sought structural relief through the breaking up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster to restore competition and provide better choices and prices to fans, artists, and venues.

What does the proposed settlement entail?

On Monday, March 6th, less than a week before the trial was set to begin, Live Nation announced that it had reached a settlement with the DOJ. Under the terms of the deal, Live Nation agreed to cap its ticketing service fees at 15% on amphitheaters, give promoters free range to distribute up to 50% of its tickets, open its amphitheaters to all promoters and divest 13 of its exclusive booking arrangements with amphitheaters, allows its artists flexibility to choosing its promotional partners, allow rival sellers to access to Ticketmaster’s platform. Additionally, the agreement included an eight-year extension of the company’s consent decree which includes retaliation and conditioning terms. The company insisted the settlement is not admission to wrongdoing and created a $280 million settlement fund to address the states’ damages claims.

Notably, the settlement did not include the structural relief originally sought which has led to some of the lawyers representing some of the states included in the case to say that they would seek a mistrial. New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, affirmed this position stating, “[w]e will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly”. Judge Arun Subramanian has pushed for the states and Live Nation to work together to reach a settlement instead of a mistrial request.

How does this create opportunities for private litigation?

While the settlement between the DOJ and Live Nation is poised to be approved, many of the states involved plan to continue pursuing the case, making it important to stay up to date with ongoing developments.

In addition, the case leaves the door open to potential private litigation. Although Live Nation admits no wrongdoing with the settlement, Judge Subramanian’s earlier denial of motion to dismiss by Live Nation provides a foundation for ticket purchasers to bring claims. He denied Live Nation’s antitrust injury challenge, finding that it was “reasonably foreseeable” that they may have been harmed.

Similarly, the settlement establishes terms that artists, venues, and ticketing platforms could rely on in future lawsuits if Live Nation fails to comply with its obligations.