{"id":4719,"date":"2025-03-14T22:38:17","date_gmt":"2025-03-14T22:38:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/live-nation-cant-beat-doj-claim-that-it-coerced-artists-with-venues\/"},"modified":"2025-03-14T22:38:17","modified_gmt":"2025-03-14T22:38:17","slug":"live-nation-cant-beat-doj-claim-that-it-coerced-artists-with-venues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/live-nation-cant-beat-doj-claim-that-it-coerced-artists-with-venues\/","title":{"rendered":"Live Nation Can’t Beat DOJ Claim That It ‘Coerced’ Artists With Venues"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tA<\/span> federal judge says the Justice Department can move ahead with a key allegation in its antitrust case against Live Nation: That the company illegally forces artists to use its promotion services if they want to perform in its massive network of amphitheaters.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a written ruling issued Friday (March 14), Judge Arun Subramanian<\/strong> denied Live Nation\u2019s request to dismiss an accusation that the concert giant illegally required artists to buy one service if they wanted to purchase another one \u2014 known in antitrust parlance as \u201ctying.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tAhead of the ruling, attorneys for Live Nation had argued that it was merely refusing to let rival concert promoters<\/em> rent its venues, something that\u2019s fair game under longstanding legal precedents. But the judge wrote in his ruling that the DOJ\u2019s accusations were clearly focused on artists, not competing firms.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe complaint explains that due to Live Nation\u2019s monopoly power in the large-amphitheater market, artists are effectively locked into using Live Nation as the promoter for a tour that stops at large amphitheaters,\u201d the judge wrote, before adding later: \u201cThese allegations aren\u2019t just about a refusal to deal with rival promoters. They are about the coercion of artists.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe decision was not on the final merits of the DOJ\u2019s case; the feds must still provide factual evidence to prove that Live Nation actually coerced artists. But at the earliest stage of the case, when courts must assume allegations are true, Judge Subramanian ruled that the DOJ had done enough to move ahead.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe DOJ and dozens of states filed the sweeping antitrust lawsuit<\/a> in May, aimed at breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster over accusations that they form an illegal monopoly over the live music industry. The feds alleged Live Nation runs an illegal \u201cflywheel\u201d \u2014 reaping revenue from ticket buyers, using that money to sign artists, then leveraging that repertoire to lock venues into exclusive ticketing contracts that yield ever more revenue.<\/p>\n

\n\tAmong other accusations, the government argued that Live Nation was exploiting its massive market share in amphitheaters \u2014 allegedly 40 of the top 50 such venues in the country \u2013 to force artists to use its concert promotion services.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cLive Nation has a longstanding policy going back more than a decade of preventing artists who prefer and choose third-party promoters from using its venues,\u201d the DOJ wrote in its complaint. \u201cIn other words, if an artist wants to use a Live Nation venue as part of a tour, he or she almost always must contract with Live Nation as the tour\u2019s concert promoter.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tNot so, argued attorneys for Live Nation. In its own court filings, the company said that it merely refuses to rent out its portfolio of amphitheaters to the competing concert promotion companies that artists have hired \u2014 and that it is \u201csettled law\u201d under federal antitrust statutes that a company has \u201cno duty to aid its competitors.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn Friday\u2019s decision, Judge Subramanian said that argument could succeed at trial, but that the DOJ\u2019s basic legal theory was sound enough to survive for now: \u201cThe facts may ultimately show that the tying claim here is nothing more than a refusal-to-deal claim,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cBut at this stage, the court\u2019s role is to determine whether the complaint states a plausible tying claim, and it does.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation did not immediately return a request for comment. A trial is tentatively scheduled for March 2026.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A federal judge says the Justice Department can move ahead with a key allegation in its antitrust case against Live Nation: That the company illegally forces artists to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4720,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[584,3335,786,5104,1343,344,1206,5105],"class_list":["post-4719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-artists","tag-beat","tag-claim","tag-coerced","tag-doj","tag-live","tag-nation","tag-venues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4719","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=4719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4719\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}