Live Nation Pushes to Remove 27 States from Federal Antitrust Lawsuit

Lawyers for Live Nation Entertainment, the parent company of Ticketmaster, urged a federal judge on Wednesday to exclude 27 states from participating as plaintiffs in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) last May. The company argued that the states lack the standing to seek damages, claiming they cannot prove their residents have suffered direct harm as a result of Live Nation’s actions, according to AOL.

The lawsuit, which has been underway for eight months without a trial date, accuses Live Nation of creating a monopolistic ecosystem through its control of major venues, promotions, and ticket sales. The DOJ claims the company’s dominance—spanning 60 of the largest 100 event amphitheaters in the U.S.—forces artists to use Live Nation’s own promoters and Ticketmaster as the exclusive ticket distributor. This alleged monopoly, per AOL, harms competition and drives up costs for both fans and performers.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Live Nation attorney Andrew Gass argued that claims of harm to ticket buyers are speculative. He described the idea that increased competition would lower ticket prices as “only a theory.” Gass suggested that allowing rival promoters to bid for access to Live Nation’s venues could lead to higher prices, as promoters would compete to offer larger profit cuts to Live Nation, with those costs passed on to consumers.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian expressed some skepticism, noting that the notion of consumers saving money through competition seemed like “a very straightforward theory.”

Related: Federal Judge Signals Revisions Likely in DOJ Case Targeting Live Nation

States Seek Damages for Residents

The 27 states in question are pursuing triple monetary damages, asserting that their residents have suffered financial harm due to inflated ticket prices resulting from Live Nation’s anti-competitive practices. Live Nation’s legal team countered that concertgoers are too far removed from the company’s exclusivity agreements with artists, promoters, and venues to justify the states’ involvement. They also argued that allowing states to join the federal lawsuit would be inefficient, likening their involvement to “piggybacking” on the federal government’s claims.

Debate Over Venue Policies

Another key aspect of the DOJ’s lawsuit is its allegation that Live Nation enforces “tying” arrangements by requiring artists to use its in-house promotion services if they want access to its venues. DOJ attorney Arianna Markel told the court that this policy effectively bars artists from working with independent promoters, which would violate antitrust laws.

Live Nation’s legal team dismissed the claim, arguing that refusing to do business with rival promoters is within the company’s rights. On this point, the judge appeared to side with Live Nation, stating, “I can’t force them to rent these amphitheaters to rival promoters.”

Next Steps in the Case

Judge Subramanian has given both parties until Monday to submit final arguments on Live Nation’s motions to dismiss parts of the lawsuit. Each submission is limited to five pages.

Source: AOL