Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation have asked a judge to stop 27 states from participating as plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit brought forth by the Department of Justice, arguing that competition at its venues would cost fans more money.
Lawyers for the entertainment giant argued in federal court that the 27 states would be unable to prove direct injury to their residents as a result of Live Nation’s actions. According to the lawyers, competition would result in higher costs for concertgoers, and without proof of injury, the states do not have standing to seek damages in the case.
The lawsuit, filed by the DOJ and 39 states including the District of Columbia last May, aims to break-up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, citing monopolistic and anticompetitive practices. The suit argues that artists who use Live Nation’s venues are forced to use Ticketmaster as its ticketer and Live Nation’s promoters — rather than their own — which creates a monopolistic ecosystem. The 27 states are seeking triple monetary damages, claiming that their residents have been injured by inflated ticket prices — a direct result from the lack of competition.
| READ: Fans Across Country Join New Lawsuit Against Ticketmaster, Live Nation |
Live Nation attorney Andrew Gass told US District Court Judge Arun Subramanian on Wednesday that concertgoers are too far removed from the monopolistic conduct for states to sue on their behalf, noting that “there is such an attenuated chain of causation” between ticket buyers and any exclusivity deals between artists, promoters, and venues.
“If Ticketmaster wasn’t doing what it was doing, then multiple ticketers could sell for an event, and then the customers would be better off in that world? That is only a theory,” Gass told Subramanian.
Gass explained that a rival promoter could offer Live Nation a sizable cut of its profits, but then be outbid by a second rival promoter, offering an even bigger cut. At the end of the day, Gass said “the price of the event goes up.”
Subramanian did not necessarily agree; the judge said the idea that consumers would save money if Ticketmaster competed with other ticket sellers for an event “seems like a very straightforward theory.”
DOJ attorney Arianna Markel fought back against Live Nation’s claim, telling Subramanian that “the policy is that third-party artists may not rent their amphitheaters unless those artists purchase Live Nation promotion services as well.”
-“The artist is essentially forced to use Live Nation for its promotion services if it wants to use those amphitheaters,” Markel said, noting that this is the “tying” arrangement barred under antitrust case law.
| READ: Judge Rejects Live Nation Effort to Pause Consumer Lawsuit Amid DOJ Case |
Live Nation has asked the judge to dismiss this claim — their lawyers argue that this isn’t “tying,” but instead, the company is just refusing to do business with its rivals. The entertainment giant pointed to the “Trinko” doctrine, arguing that Live Nation has no duty to aid its competitors. Subramanian agreed with Live Nation, explaining that “I can’t force them to rent these amphitheaters to rival promoters.”
Subramanian did not rule on the motion; instead, both Live Nation and the DOJ’s lawyers will have until Monday to file no more than five pages in final arguments for and against Live Nation’s motions to dismiss these claims. He promised to “promptly rule on the motion.”
Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, executives at Live Nation and Ticketmaster have shared their hope for the future, expressing confidence that the incoming Republican administration and its Department of Justice might favor a more “traditional” approach to antitrust affairs.
While the country proved to be very divided on the political spectrum following the outcome of Election Day, it is apparent that the outrage against Ticketmaster and its corporate parent is one of the safest bipartisan issues. Attorneys General from 39 states plus the District of Columbia are signed on as co-plaintiffs in the case — representing a wide spectrum from blue states like California to red states like Alabama.
A trial date is currently set for March 2026.
Related News :