Attorneys for Live Nation are urging the dismissal of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust allegations against the concert promoter. They argue that the company’s use of its amphitheaters does not constitute illegal tying arrangements, asserting that Live Nation has no obligation to allow rival promoters to use the venues it owns or manages.
In a letter dated July 17 to Judge Arun Subramanian, Live Nation’s co-lead trial counsel Alfred C. Pfeiffer of Latham & Watkins argued that the practice, described as a “refusal to deal,” is common in the concert industry and is protected by Supreme Court precedent.
Pfeiffer referenced a 2004 ruling in a case brought by Verizon, stating, “As a general matter, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long recognized right of a [defendant] engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal.” He emphasized that Live Nation has no obligation “to extend a helping hand to new entrants” or assist its rivals “survive or expand.” He added that “the unimpeachable freedom to refuse to deal with rivals (in all but the rarest circumstances, which are not even arguably present in this case) rests on bedrock antitrust principles.”
Related: Live Nation May Face Antitrust Lawsuit
The DOJ’s 128-page complaint against Live Nation alleges that the company illegally “conditions artists’ access” to the 56 outdoor amphitheaters it controls by forcing artists to choose “Live Nation as the promoter for concerts at its venues.” This forms the crux of the government’s case against the concert giant.
Pfeiffer’s letter follows a June 27 pre-trial hearing where Judge Subramanian invited Live Nation’s attorneys to file a letter identifying issues with the DOJ complaint before an amended complaint is filed. Pfeiffer noted that the judge’s invitation was intended to provide the defendants “a good argument that those claims should be dismissed with prejudice” if the government fails to counter Live Nation’s arguments in a motion to dismiss.
Source: Billboard
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 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