Live Nation antitrust lawsuit continues in US What’s at stake in this case?
Live Nation Entertainment and US Department of Justice (DOJ) begin antitrust lawsuit this week that could force a breakup of the entertainment behemoth, which owns ticketing juggernaut Ticketmaster.
The DOJ alleges that Live Nation has an illegal monopoly that harms competition.
“Today, the concert ticket industry is broken. In fact, the concert industry itself is broken,” attorney David Dahlquist told jurors in his opening statement Tuesday. “It’s controlled by a monopolist. It’s controlled by Live Nation.”
Dahlquist pointed to the company’s woefully beleaguered effort to sell Taylor Swift tickets for the singer’s 2022 Eras Tour. He appealed to a Manhattan federal judge to end the company’s hold on the market.
If the government wins, it could take a number of steps to allow more players to compete in the industry, including a more severe penalty ordering the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
Live Nation’s attorney, David Marriott, said the company is facing intense competition throughout the industry.
“Every customer we get is an uphill battle in a competitive marketplace,” he said Tuesday.
But the trial has just begun, and experts say the future impact on fans, venues and artists is still difficult to predict. Here’s what we know so far, and how the trial could have devastating consequences for Canada.
The US Department of Justice has sued Live Nation, the owner of Ticketmaster, alleging that it illegally controlled the live music industry – harming fans, artists and venues in the process. Andrew Chang makes the argument to dissolve the company.
What is the case?
DOJ first sued Live Nation in 2024 and 30 US states (another nine have already joined), arguing that the company used its great size and power to force a self-reinforcing “flywheel”.
The department alleges that the company makes money from ticket buyers, using it to sign artists to promote them. Then, using a who’s who of its performers, Live Nation signed up venues for special ticket deals, starting the cycle again, the DOJ argued.
“It’s time for a Live Nation-Ticketmaster breakup,” US Attorney General Merrick Garland said when the DOJ filed the lawsuit.
At the time, Live Nation said it would prevail in court and added that the lawsuit would not address fan issues, such as ticket prices and access to popular shows. It also emphasized that artists and groups set their own prices and control how tickets are sold.
Since then, the two sides have been going back and forth at the trial stage, where the DOJ’s argument has been undercut. In a case last month, Judge Arun Subramanian rejected the department’s appeals that it should not compete due to a lack of evidence such as how the company sells tickets to the public and how it charges artists at major concert venues.
Stephen Selznick, a partner at Toronto-based law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell, said it is common for some allegations to be dismissed.
But since the controversy surrounding the consumer-facing ticket business has been ruled out, the potential impact on ticket prices is limited, he said.
“You’re not going to hear about … hockey tickets that are $2,000 apiece,” Selznick said. “That’s the sad part about this case.”
That means two major groups of applications remain. One is that artists must use Live Nation’s promotional services to gain access to some of its amphitheaters. Another is that the company pressures venues to use its ticketing services only to reach performers who want to perform.
But there could still be some impact, he said. A successful DOJ could take steps to limit Live Nation’s alleged power over artists and venues, which could still lower prices, albeit to a lesser extent.
Ripple results in Canada
Depending on how the case goes, it could have dire consequences for Canada.
If the government succeeds and Live Nation’s business is limited, Selznick says the changes made in the US could be applied to the company’s Canadian operations, too.
He gives the example of a singer who travels to countries like Taylor Swift, who will not have a separate tour of the US and Canada, but will see the continent as a whole, with dates in both countries held at the same ticket office and with the same promoters.
“In a market as integrated as that, what happens in the US will have a big impact on what happens here,” Selznick said.
And whatever the outcome, Selznick says the Canadian Competition Bureau, along with some of the groups that have brought Live Nation lawsuits in this country, will be watching closely to see what might be relevant to their lawsuits.
I The Consumer Council of Canada has applied for approval suing Live Nation and Ticketmaster, saying the companies have become gatekeepers to every part of the entertainment industry and driving up costs.
As It Happened6:40‘Swifties finally heard’: Texas lawyer accepts US antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster
Jennifer Quaid, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who worked with the US DOJ, added that the council would still need to show that Live Nation’s practices had a specific impact in this country, however – and many details specific to Canada may not come out of the US case.
The outcome cannot yet be predicted
But the case is still early, and Quaid warns against thinking too far into the future.
Even though the judge has granted a trial, that doesn’t say anything about how strong the government’s arguments are or how likely it is to win, he said.
“We’re about to start the qualifying stage. That’s a big mountain to climb first.”
Live Nation and Ticketmaster will raise resale prices and refund a portion of some fans after UK singer Olivia Dean announced the sale of overpriced tickets for her tour. This comes as proposed legislation in the UK would cover tickets being resold for more than face value.
Even if the DOJ wins its case, it doesn’t necessarily mean the company’s breakup. It’s one of the worst moves that can be made and it’s usually irreversible, he said. Courts have used the option sparingly in the past.
Selznick agrees. He says “ethical remedies” – rules about how a company should conduct business to correct its anti-competitive practices – are more likely. That could mean barring Live Nation from making exclusivity deals, for example.
Still, Keldon Bester, executive director of the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, hopes the case can help create more competition in the entertainment industry.
“If this breaks key indicators of how Ticketmaster-Live Nation keeps costs high, then customers can see real relief.”
