Live Nation Antitrust Case Goes to Jury

Jurors in the antitrust trial against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster unit are to begin deliberations Friday after sharp closing arguments in federal court in Manhattan. Attorneys for 34 states, which continued their case after the Justice Department reached its own settlement with the company, argued that Live Nation runs a powerful live entertainment monopoly that stifles rivals and inflates ticket costs, the New York Times reports. Citing internal emails and messages during the trial that used phrases like "robbing them blind," referring to customers, per Rolling Stone, and "taking advantage of them," plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey Kessler told jurors such language reflected a company that "views itself to be above the law."

Live Nation, he said, uses a "flywheel" of interconnected businesses—promotion, venues, and Ticketmaster ticketing—to reinforce its dominance and "dig the moat deeper around the monopoly castle." Live Nation's lawyer, David Marriott, countered that the case rests on "snippets and insinuation" rather than proof of illegal conduct. He said the company does not condone the internal comments highlighted by the states but argued they were distractions from market realities. Marriott acknowledged Live Nation's scale—"We are big. That is not against the law. We are fierce competitors"—and called the government portrayal of major concert venues a "gerrymandered market" created to make Ticketmaster's roughly 86% share look more extreme. He said the live music sector is expanding, with "more competition today than ever before."

The states argue that Live Nation has pressured artists to use its promotion arm and threatened venues that declined exclusive Ticketmaster contracts, including retaliation against Brooklyn's Barclays Center after it switched ticketing providers. Jurors heard a recorded call in which CEO Michael Rapino warned Barclays it would be "a tough time to deliver tickets for concerts"; Rapino later testified he was describing competitive conditions, not issuing threats, and characterized Live Nation as a hard-driving but lawful competitor. Among the potential penalties, should the jury find against the company, is breaking up Live Nation.