US Justice Department Seeks Live Nation Breakup Over Ticketmaster Monopoly
The United States Justice Department has urged a federal judge to break up Live Nation Entertainment Inc., alleging the company maintains a stranglehold over the live events industry through anticompetitive practices. Central to the government's argument is the claim that Live Nation systematically freezes out venues that choose not to use its Ticketmaster ticketing subsidiary.
Financial Impact on Venues Switching from Ticketmaster
According to the Justice Department's lawsuit filed in 2024, venues that abandoned Ticketmaster in favor of rival ticketing services faced significant financial repercussions. The government presented evidence showing these venues lost approximately five concerts per year promoted by Live Nation. This translated to a combined revenue forfeiture of about $1.5 million annually, averaging more than $300,000 per event.
During a recent court hearing in Manhattan, Justice Department lawyer Bonny Sweeney cited specific examples, including New York's Barclays Center, which reportedly lost concerts after switching from Ticketmaster to a competitor. Sweeney further noted that many venues have complained about Ticketmaster's services being inferior to those offered by rivals, yet feel compelled to use them due to Live Nation's market dominance.
Live Nation's Market Dominance and Legal Defense
The antitrust lawsuit, filed by the Justice Department and approximately 30 states, reveals staggering statistics about Live Nation's market control. The company operates more than 265 concert venues across North America and manages over 400 musical artists. Through its Ticketmaster subsidiary, Live Nation controls about 87% of the concert ticketing market and more than 65% of the concert promotion market.
Live Nation, which merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, has vigorously denied operating an illegal monopoly. The company's legal team, led by attorney Andrew Gass, has asked US District Judge Arun Subramanian to dismiss the government's lawsuit or decide the case without proceeding to trial, which is currently scheduled for March 2.
Gass argued that despite years of investigation, the government could only identify eight alleged instances over 15 years where Live Nation threatened to withhold concerts if a venue switched ticketing services. He also contended that the government failed to demonstrate actual harm caused by Live Nation's policy requiring artists to use its promotion services at company-owned venues.
Impact on Artists and Concert Economics
The Justice Department presented additional arguments about how Live Nation's practices affect artists financially. Government lawyer Lorraine Van Kirk testified that artists earn less from shows at Live Nation-owned amphitheaters due to specific company policies.
Van Kirk revealed that Live Nation instructed employees not to increase artist guarantees—the predetermined payment artists receive even if concerts are canceled—at venues where artists are required to use Live Nation's promotion services. Furthermore, Live Nation amphitheaters reportedly charge higher venue and service fees compared to similarly sized venues, often forcing artists to reduce their ticket prices to avoid passing these additional costs to fans.
The case, officially titled US v. Live Nation (24-cv-3973), is being heard in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following recent arguments from both sides, Judge Subramanian has not indicated when he will rule on Live Nation's request to dismiss the lawsuit.
