Ticketmaster owner Live Nation maintains an – Business News
Ticketmaster owner Live Nation has maintained an unlawful monopoly over the dwell occasion and ticketing markets, in keeping with a bombshell verdict introduced in Manhattan federal courtroom on Wednesday.
The jurors decided that Live Nation, led by CEO Michael Rapino, had illegally leveraged its possession of main live performance venues to benefit its own tour promotion business. Concertgoers paid an further $1.72 per ticket as a direct consequence of Live Nation’s anti-competitive practices, the jury discovered, in keeping with Bloomberg.
US District Judge Arun Subramanian will resolve on what penalties Live Nation will need to pay as a consequence of the decision, in addition to acceptable remedies – together with a potential breakup of the business.
Live Nation faces a potential breakup. REUTERS
The jury’s choice adopted a six-week trial that proceeded to courtroom even after President Trump’s Justice Department struck a controversial settlement with the leisure giant. A coalition of 33 states, together with New York and California, opted to proceed the case.
Lawmakers have looked for years to rein in Live Nation, which presided over the notorious ticketing fiasco for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour.
The states are looking for up to $700 million in damages, in addition to penalties for violations of state-level antitrust legal guidelines, in keeping with Bloomberg.
“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated in a assertion.
Live Nation’s stock was down more than 3% in late afternoon trading. Meanwhile, shares of industry rival StubHub jumped 5% and Vivid Seats was up 9%.
Live Nation didn’t instantly return a request for remark. The company has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.
Michael Rapino, CEO of Live Nation Entertainment, arrives to the courthouse in New York City, March 10, 2026. REUTERS
The company is anticipated to appeal the ruling.
Court data that surfaced during the trial included Slack messages through which Live Nation worker Ben Baker admitted to turning a blind eye when brokers had been shopping for up large blocks of tickets, saying, “normally I’d look other way.”
In different Slack messages from 2021 to 2023 that went viral, Baker and fellow Live Nation govt Jeff Weinhold gloated about charging huge charges on ticket purchases at Live Nation venues, saying “these people are so stupid” that “I almost feel bad taking advantage of them,” in keeping with courtroom papers.
Under the DOJ’s settlement, Live Nation agreed to cap its service charges at its amphitheaters at 15%, open up reserving at 13 amphitheaters to opponents and place a four-year restrict on exclusivity offers between Ticketmaster and particular venues.
Live Nation additionally agreed to create a $280 million fund to settle state claims.
As The Post reported, critics alleged that the settlement amounted to a slap on the wrist that wouldn’t help decrease ticket costs.
“A slap on the wrist is even too strong of a characterization of this agreement,” the dwell leisure industry source final month. “It’s more like light tickle on the wrist.”
The jury’s verdict got here after a six-week trial. Adam McCullough – stock.adobe.com
“Without the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, there isn’t going to be a meaningful difference in ticket prices,” the source added.
Judge Subramanian expressed outrage over the settlement between the feds and Live Nation, which was introduced after the trial had already begun and was so abrupt that even lead DOJ legal professional David Dahlquist stated he didn’t study the main points till across the similar time the courtroom was knowledgeable.
A senior Justice Department official defended the company’s choice to settle final month, arguing that court-ordered divestitures are uncommon and tough to acquire.
Striking a deal to open up Live Nation’s technology and place limits on amphitheater exclusivity offers secured reduction for the company’s opponents with out the need for a expensive trial and years-long appeal course of, the official added.
The settlement was introduced shortly after the abrupt ouster of former DOJ antitrust chief Gail Slater, who clashed with company management over how to deal with high-profile instances.
