Federal Judge Keeps Antitrust Case Against Live Nation in New York, Rejecting Venue Change
A federal judge in New York has ruled that the ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its subsidiary Ticketmaster will proceed in the Southern District of New York, rejecting the defendants’ request to transfer the case to Washington, D.C. According to Bloomberg, this ruling is a significant step forward for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which seeks to dismantle what it describes as an illegal monopoly in the live events industry.
In May, the DOJ, alongside nearly 30 state attorneys general, filed a lawsuit against Live Nation, aiming to compel the company to divest Ticketmaster, a giant in the ticketing market. The lawsuit follows years of rising consumer frustration over ticket prices and purchasing processes. Live Nation and Ticketmaster argued that a prior consent decree from their 2010 merger with the DOJ designated the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as the appropriate venue for any related legal matters. However, the court’s recent decision allows the case to remain in New York, where it will be heard in 2026.
Related: Live Nation May Face Antitrust Lawsuit
The lawsuit accuses Live Nation of monopolistic practices that have significantly increased ticket prices for consumers. This antitrust action comes amid widespread dissatisfaction among fans over the concert-going experience, which has seen ticket costs rise to exorbitant levels, at times equating to a month’s rent for the most sought-after shows. “We are not here today because Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s conduct is inconvenient or frustrating,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland during a press conference in May. “We are here because … that conduct is anticompetitive and illegal. We allege that Live Nation has illegally monopolized markets across the live-concert industry in the United States for far too long. It is time to break it up.”
The DOJ claims that Live Nation’s immense market power allows it to secure lucrative contracts with artists that smaller competitors cannot match. This, they argue, ultimately leads to higher ticket prices as fans bear the burden of the inflated costs associated with these contracts. The company’s promotional business alone reported $4.5 billion in revenue in the third quarter of 2024, surpassing its closest rival, AEG Presents, by more than double, according to Pollstar.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand