{"id":8598,"date":"2025-11-19T16:37:18","date_gmt":"2025-11-19T16:37:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/live-nation-moves-to-end-doj-antitrust-case-before-trial\/"},"modified":"2025-11-19T16:37:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T16:37:18","slug":"live-nation-moves-to-end-doj-antitrust-case-before-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/live-nation-moves-to-end-doj-antitrust-case-before-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Live Nation Moves to End DOJ Antitrust Case Before Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tAttorneys for Live Nation and Ticketmaster are hoping to end the Department of Justice\u2019s sweeping antitrust case before it goes to trial, filing a 51-page summary-judgment motion that argues the claims of the DOJ and the 41 state AGs who joined the suit have failed to prove that the concert giant operates like a monopoly.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe filing, submitted to Federal Judge Arun Subramanian<\/strong> in the Southern District of New York, casts the government\u2019s lawsuit as an overreach that collapses due to a lack of evidence.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tLive Nation\u2019s attorneys at Latham Watkins and Cravath, Swaine & Moore allege that the DOJ began the litigation with harsh accusations against Live Nation, saying the DOJ accused the global promoter of operating \u201cmultiple, self-reinforcing monopolies\u201d replete with \u201c\u2018systematic\u2019 and \u2018intentional\u2019 corruption of competition across \u2018virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cStrong words,\u201d Live Nation lawyers write. \u201cIf there was a lick of truth to them, one would expect Plaintiffs to now have mountains of evidence\u2026 And yet\u2026 Plaintiffs have barely a molehill.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation\u2019s attorneys go on to argue that the government has not proven the most fundamental element of a monopolization claim: monopoly power. Citing long-standing Supreme Court precedent, the company notes that \u201cmonopoly power is the foundational element of every monopoly maintenance case,\u201d and insists the DOJ has failed to meet that threshold.<\/p>\n

\n\tInstead of using traditional evidence of monopoly power to make its case \u2013 like high prices or significant barriers to entry \u2014 Live Nation says the DOJ case is built on inferences and derivative legal arguments, relying on \u201cgerrymandered\u201d market definitions to make its case. According to the motion, the government relies on a convoluted formula to define a \u201cmajor concert venue,\u201d singling out venues with capacities above 8,000 that host 10 or more concerts during at least one year in the 2017\u20132024 period. Stadiums, large theaters, smaller amphitheaters and many other common concert venues are excluded.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Live<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tLive Nation argues this structure ignores how competition in the concert business actually works, noting that \u201cmade-for-litigation markets plainly do not encompass \u2018the area of effective competition\u2019 that the law requires,\u201d pointing out that rival ticketing companies such as SeatGeek, AXS, Eventim and Paciolan compete broadly and do not restrict their efforts to the DOJ\u2019s handpicked venues.<\/p>\n

\n\tCompany attorneys argue that the DOJ\u2019s narrowed market definition is the only way the government can claim Ticketmaster has a monopoly. According to Live Nation, the DOJ\u2019s own expert calculated that Ticketmaster\u2019s market share would fall from 86% to 49% if stadiums \u2014 venues the DOJ included when it challenged the Live Nation\u2013Ticketmaster merger in 2010 \u2014 were defined as \u201cmajor concert venues.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cFar from having the \u2018power to exclude competition,\u2019 Ticketmaster has lost over 30 points of market share since the merger,\u201d in 2011 between Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the company\u2019s attorneys claim.<\/p>\n

\n\tBeyond market definition, the company spends considerable space pushing back on one of the DOJ\u2019s central theories: that Ticketmaster\u2019s long-term exclusive ticketing contracts with venues hamper competition. Live Nation argues that exclusivity has been the industry standard in North America for decades and remains preferred by venues because it leads to higher up-front payments, smoother operations, integrated technology, and reduced consumer confusion about where to buy tickets.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cEvery venue witness has testified that they seek and prefer exclusive ticketing contracts,\u201d the memo reads, arguing that no venue manager interviewed in the lawsuit claimed to be coerced into an exclusive contract or pushed for a multi-ticketer system and was prevented from pursuing one.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"AEG,<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tThe DOJ has also accused Live Nation of tying concert promotion to its Ticketmaster\u2019s offering, alleging that the company threatens or retaliates against venues by steering Live Nation-promoted tours away from buildings that choose rival ticketing services. Live Nation\u2019s lawyers said evidence behind these allegations was paper thin, writing, \u201cAt most three venue witnesses support this claim\u2014one in the last five years. \u2026 Three out of thousands could not possibly prove the market-wide anticompetitive effects required for a monopolization claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tAccording to the filing, the rest of the government\u2019s evidence comes from rival ticketing companies \u2014 statements Live Nation calls inadmissible hearsay that cannot survive summary judgment. The company further notes that similar allegations were investigated by the DOJ in 2019, leading to a modification of the consent decree but not a finding of systemic misconduct. Since then, Live Nation says, \u201cthe outside antitrust monitor\u2026 has not reported a single violation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe company also disputes the government\u2019s claims tied to Live Nation\u2019s amphitheaters. Prosecutors allege that Live Nation illegally ties access to amphitheaters to its own promotion services, discouraging artists from working with independent promoters. Live Nation responds that this theory is contradicted by how touring actually works: artists, it says, control routing decisions, approve venues, set ticket prices, and choose their promoters based on guarantees and deal terms. The filing points out that the DOJ deposed only one artist throughout the entire case and that his testimony did not support the government\u2019s claim. According to the motion, the artist \u201canswered, without ambiguity or qualification,\u201d that he had not been coerced to hire Live Nation as a condition of playing an amphitheater. \u201cThat is no basis for a trial,\u201d the filing states.<\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation insists its amphitheaters are a competitive asset and not a leverage point to suppress competition. The company analogizes amphitheaters to tools of the trade: promoters, not artists, rent the venues, and the ability to offer those venues is part of how promoters compete for tours. The motion argues that amphitheaters typically are not rented to competing promoters for structural business reasons, not because of an anticompetitive scheme.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Robert<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tThroughout the filing, Live Nation repeatedly invokes the DOJ\u2019s own prior statements from 2010 in which the agency acknowledged the benefits of the company\u2019s vertical integration with Ticketmaster. In approving the Live Nation\u2013Ticketmaster merger, the DOJ wrote that \u201cvertical integration can produce procompetitive benefits\u201d and that \u201cmost instances of vertical integration\u2026 are economically beneficial.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation attorneys also argue regularly in their memo that the DOJ cannot show harm to consumers\u2014not through higher prices, a drop in shows or a decline in concert quality. Citing Microsoft and other precedent, Live Nation argues that such evidence is indispensable in a monopolization case. The filing states, \u201cThere must be evidence of actual harm to consumers; \u2018harm to one or more competitors will not suffice.\u2019 Plaintiffs never show that anything Defendants have done harmed artists or venues.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe motion concludes by arguing that after extensive discovery, there are no triable issues remaining to be adjudicated. \u201cThe faithful application of law to the evidence adduced should yield summary judgment for Live Nation and Ticketmaster,\u201d the filing states.<\/p>\n

\n\tAttorneys for the government will have their chance to file a response in the coming weeks before Judge Subramanian determines whether the case proceeds to trial. If the summary-judgment motion is granted, much or all of the government\u2019s case could be dismissed outright or the government could be forced to refile parts of its lawsuit. <\/p>\n

\n\tLive Nation is also facing a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission over how the company operates its secondary ticket business.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Attorneys for Live Nation and Ticketmaster are hoping to end the Department of Justice\u2019s sweeping antitrust case before it goes to trial, filing a 51-page summary-judgment motion that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8599,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[358,294,1343,344,693,1206,342],"class_list":["post-8598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-antitrust","tag-case","tag-doj","tag-live","tag-moves","tag-nation","tag-trial"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8598","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=8598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8598\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}