{"id":1831,"date":"2024-07-18T17:52:12","date_gmt":"2024-07-18T17:52:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/live-nation-asks-judge-to-toss-amphitheater-antitrust-charges\/"},"modified":"2024-07-18T17:52:12","modified_gmt":"2024-07-18T17:52:12","slug":"live-nation-asks-judge-to-toss-amphitheater-antitrust-charges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/live-nation-asks-judge-to-toss-amphitheater-antitrust-charges\/","title":{"rendered":"Live Nation Asks Judge to Toss Amphitheater Antitrust Charges"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tAttorneys for Live Nation want the judge presiding over the company\u2019s historic antitrust case to dismiss allegations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the concert promoter uses illegal tying arrangements to operate its amphitheaters,\u00a0arguing it has no obligation to allow rival promoters to use the venues it owns or manages.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation\u2019s co-lead trial counsel Alfred C. Pfeiffer<\/strong> of Latham Watkins argued in a July 17 letter to Judge Arun Subramanian<\/strong> that this practice, described as a \u201crefusal to deal,\u201d is common in the concert business and protected by Supreme Court precedent.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAs a general matter, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long-recognized right of a [defendant] engaged in an entirely private business, free to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal,\u201d Pfeiffer writes, quoting a 2004 ruling in a case brought by Verizon.<\/p>\n

\n\tAccordingly, Live Nation has no obligation \u201cto extend a helping hand to new entrants\u201d or help its rivals \u201csurvive or expand,\u201d Pfeiffer notes, adding, \u201cThe unimpeachable freedom to refuse to deal with rivals (in all but the rarest circumstances, which are not even arguably present in this case) rests on bedrock antitrust principles.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the government\u2019s 128-page complaint against Live Nation, attorneys with the DOJ\u2019s antitrust division allege that the company illegally \u201cconditions artists\u2019 access\u201d to the 56 outdoor amphitheaters the company controls by forcing artists to chose \u201cLive Nation as the promoter for concerts at its venues.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tPfeiffer\u2019s letter was born out of a June 27 pretrial hearing in which Subramanian invited Live Nation\u2019s attorneys to file a letter to the court identifying issues that Live Nation had with the DOJ complaint \u201cas opposed to advancing those arguments after\u201d an amended complaint is filed, Pfeiffer wrote. \u201cYour Honor advised that doing so would provide defendants \u2018a good argument that those claims should be dismissed with prejudice\u2019 \u201d if the government cannot overcome Live Nation\u2019s arguments on a motion to dismiss.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation lawyers also want the antitrust claims filed by 30 states\u2019 attorneys general alongside the DOJ dismissed, including 22 separate claims under their own state laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThese claims are threadbare and conclusory,\u201d Pfeiffer writes, noting that many of the state AGs merely repeat the DOJ\u2019s allegations without specifically alleging \u201cthe elements of each state law claim\u201d or citing \u201cwhat conduct allegedly violates the state laws in question.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tPfeiffer also criticized the states for failing to detail their damage claims\u00a0and argued that many of the state objections were barred by different states\u2019 statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe DOJ has until Sept. 18 to respond to Live Nation\u2019s letter. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Attorneys for Live Nation want the judge presiding over the company\u2019s historic antitrust case to dismiss allegations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the concert promoter uses […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1832,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[2565,358,1051,1907,423,344,1206,2564],"class_list":["post-1831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-amphitheater","tag-antitrust","tag-asks","tag-charges","tag-judge","tag-live","tag-nation","tag-toss"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1831","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1831\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1832"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}