US DOJ Sue Live Nation and Ticketmaster, Alleging Monopolistic Practices

The US Justice Department, backed by attorneys general from 29 states and Washington, D.C., has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster. The lawsuit alleges that the companies have violated antitrust laws, resulting in harm to consumers and the live events industry.

Live Nation, created by the merger of US-based events promoter Live Nation and ticket sales and distribution company Ticketmaster in 2010, is accused of engaging in practices that harm the entire live entertainment industry. This includes artists, fans, venues, and startups seeking to break into the business. The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation directly manages over 400 musical artists, controls 60% of concert promotions at major venues, and through Ticketmaster, controls roughly 80% or more of major concert venues’ ticketing, plus a growing share of the resale market.

The lawsuit also accuses Live Nation of working with a venue management firm called Oak View Group to steer clients to sign exclusive agreements to use Ticketmaster. It alleges that Live Nation has sought to snuff out competition in the concert promotion business through threats of retaliation and has acquired upstart groups it saw as threats. It also accuses Live Nation of signing long-term, “exclusionary” deals that pre-empt venues from looking to alternative management companies and from using multiple ticketing platforms.

The lawsuit seeks to break up Live Nation, alleging that its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States has resulted in fans paying more in fees, artists having fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters getting squeezed out, and venues having fewer real choices for ticketing services.

In response to the lawsuit, Live Nation has denied that it is violating antitrust laws and said that the lawsuit “won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows.” The outcome of this lawsuit could potentially change the landscape of the live events industry.

Read more: www.nytimes.com