The Department of Justice on Thursday sued concert giant Live Nation Entertainment, which owns Ticketmaster, arguing that it maintained an illegal monopoly in the live entertainment industry, and asked the court to break up the company.
In the lawsuit, which was joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticket-sales contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening rivals with financial retaliation.
The government alleges that these tactics have led to inflated ticket prices for consumers and stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry. The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to order “at a minimum, the divestiture of Ticketmaster” and to prevent Live Nation from engaging in anti-competitive conduct.
“It's time for fans and artists to stop paying the price of Live Nation's monopoly,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday. “It's time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster, and the American people are ready for that.”
The case is part of a broader effort by US regulators to rein in the growing power of corporations in the internet age, testing century-old antitrust laws against the new power big companies wield over consumers. The Justice Department has sued Apple and filed two lawsuits against Google, and the Federal Trade Commission has filed antitrust cases against Amazon and Meta.
The Department of Justice's latest lawsuit is a direct challenge to Live Nation's business, an entertainment industry giant that impacts the lives of musicians and fans alike. The lawsuit comes 14 years after the government approved the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger, which has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry.
Live Nation's size and influence far exceeds that of any of its competitors, including concert promotion, ticket sales, artist management, and operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world. “Live Nation has tentacles that extend into nearly every aspect of the live entertainment industry,” the government said in its complaint.
According to the Department of Justice, Live Nation controls about 60% of concert promotions at major U.S. venues and about 80% of primary ticket sales at major concert venues.
Lawmakers, fans and competitors have accused Live Nation of inflating ticket prices and fees to harm rivals. In a congressional hearing early last year, senators from both parties called Live Nation a monopoly after millions of people were unable to purchase tickets to Taylor Swift's tour presales on Ticketmaster.
In its complaint, the Justice Department calls many of the surcharges “essentially a 'Ticketmaster tax' that ultimately increases the prices fans pay.”
In response to the lawsuit, Live Nation denied having a monopoly and said breaking up the monopoly would not result in lower ticket prices or fees. The company said artists and sports teams are primarily responsible for setting ticket prices, with other business partners such as venues footing the bulk of the additional fees.
Dan Wall, Live Nation's executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs, said in a statement that the Justice Department's lawsuit came in response to “intense political pressure.”
Wall added that the government's lawsuit “ignores all of the real causes of soaring ticket prices, from rising production costs to the popularity of artists to 24/7 online ticket sales that reveal public will far beyond the cost of tickets.”
The company also said its market share for ticket sales has declined in recent years due to competition from competitors.
Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, who chaired Live Nation's Senate Judiciary hearing last year, supported the Justice Department's lawsuit, which includes demands for a breakup.
“Live Nation continues to get bigger and bigger and more and more dominant,” Klobuchar said in an interview after filing the lawsuit. “I think the fact that they're coming out in a big way and asking for a breakup is the right thing to do as a remedy.”
In 2010, the Justice Department allowed Live Nation, the world's largest concert promoter, to acquire Ticketmaster under certain conditions set out in a legal agreement. For example, Live Nation couldn't threaten to cancel concert tours if venues didn't use Ticketmaster.
However, in 2019, the Department of Justice found that Live Nation had violated those terms and amended and extended its contract with the company.
Former Federal Trade Commission Chairman Bill Kovačić said Wednesday that the lawsuit against the company is a rebuke to the early antitrust regulators who helped the company grow to its current size.
“This is a restatement of the previous policy, which failed and was a huge failure,” he said.
The Justice Department alleged in Thursday's lawsuit that Live Nation abused its relationships with partners to keep competitors out of the market. demands a jury trial.
A key part of the Justice Department's case hinges on Live Nation's interconnected businesses. Organize concerts, issue tickets, find sponsors, and then manage the performing artists, so each work can be used to benefit the others. This makes it harder for rivals to compete and hurts the ability of new competitors to emerge, the lawsuit claims.
The government's complaint alleges that Live Nation has threatened venues with losing tickets to popular tours if they don't use Ticketmaster. The threats could be explicit or merely implied, conveyed through intermediaries, the government said, adding that the company can also bar artists not affiliated with the company from using its venues.
Additionally, Live Nation has acquired a number of small and medium-sized businesses, and the government says Live Nation is listed in internal documents as eliminating the biggest threat.
One such deal was with AC Entertainment, a regional concert promoter that played a role in Bonnaroo, a popular music and arts festival in Tennessee, which Live Nation pursued acquisition talks with in 2016 despite having doubts about the economics of the acquisition, according to the complaint.
According to the lawsuit, a senior Live Nation executive said the deal “feels like a defensive move” against AEG, Live Nation's biggest rival as a national concert promoter.
The Justice Department also accused Live Nation of anticompetitive conduct with Oak View Group, a venue company co-founded by Live Nation's former executive chairman, which the government alleges avoided bidding with Live Nation on artist collaborations, thereby influencing the venue's ability to secure contracts with Ticketmaster.
In 2016, Live Nation's chief executive complained in an email that Oak View Group offered to promote artists who had previously worked with Live Nation. According to the government, Oakview Group withdrew.
“Our people were a little ahead of their time,” the company's chief executive officer said in an email, according to the government. “Everyone knows we don't do any promotions and only tour with Live Nation.”
The case also highlights the difference between the U.S. concert business, where venues tend to have exclusive agreements with ticket sellers, and other parts of the world, where venues have “open” agreements that allow competition between ticket sellers.
“Today, fans pay more for tickets to live music concerts in the United States than in other parts of the world,” the complaint says.
The most recent Department of Justice investigation into Live Nation began in 2022. Live Nation also ramped up its lobbying efforts at the same time, spending $2.4 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2023, up from $1.1 million in 2022, according to filings available through the nonpartisan website OpenSecrets. .
In April, the company co-hosted a lavish party in Washington ahead of the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner that featured a performance by country singer Jelly Roll and cocktail napkins laying out positive facts about Live Nation's impact on the economy, saying it pays artists billions of dollars.
Following pressure from the White House, Live Nation said in June it would begin displaying prices for performances at venues it owns, including all fees, even surcharges, while the Federal Trade Commission is proposing rules to ban hidden fees.
The Justice Department's lawsuit drew praise from some fans.
Victoria Addison, a lifelong Swift fan, said she believes Live Nation's control over the industry is the reason she was unable to get tickets to Swift's Erasu tour. “I love Taylor so much, but I just can't justify spending thousands more on tickets,” Addison said.
“It's about time,” said Justin Ward, who runs a live music blog. “I have no idea why the merger was allowed to happen in the first place.”
Julia Jacobs contributed to this report.
