What's next? Remedy phase, could include divestiture. We need the same in nursing home industry. From The New York Times:
Jury Finds Live Nation Acts as a Monopoly in a Victory for States
In a verdict that could have far-reaching consequences in the music industry, the live colossus that includes Ticketmaster was found to have violated antitrust laws.
A federal jury on Wednesday found that Live Nation, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, has operated as a monopoly in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, ending a closely watched trial in New York that could have far-reaching consequences in the music industry.
The verdict came after four days of deliberations in which the nine-person jury parsed a long list of questions it was asked to consider in a complex case that involved weeks of expert testimony.
The judge overseeing the case, Arun Subramanian, will determine remedies in a separate proceeding. That could include significant divestments by Live Nation, or even a breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster — an outcome that the federal government had called for when filing its case almost two years ago, though it is sure to be vigorously contested by Live Nation.
Live Nation will also face monetary damages as a result of the jury’s verdict in the case, which was brought by 34 states. The jury determined that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will next set an overall damages amount based on the jury’s finding.
During the seven-week trial, Live Nation consistently argued that it is not a monopoly, and that it competes aggressively — but legally — in a market filled with other ticketers, concert promoters, venue operators and sports teams.
Countering one of the government’s central claims, Live Nation also denied that it threatens venues to sign deals with Ticketmaster or else risk losing access to Live Nation’s popular concert tours.
“We are fierce competitors,” David R. Marriott, a lawyer for Live Nation, told the jury in closing arguments last week. “We are trying to win the business.”
Whatever remedy the judge orders, it will likely shift the competitive landscape in the multibillion-dollar concert business, where Live Nation has been a colossus with no equal. Last year, the company put on 55,000 events and sold 646 million tickets around the world. According to testimony, Ticketmaster sells about 10 times as many tickets as its closest rival, AEG.
As Live Nation has pitched to Wall Street, its greatest advantage is the “flywheel” model of its interconnected businesses, in which an ever-increasing supply of concert tours fuel higher-margin transactions like ticket sales and sponsorship deals. If that model is disrupted by court-ordered divestments, it could dampen Live Nation’s power.
After news of the verdict on Wednesday, shares of Live Nation stock fell by 6 percent.
The trial served as a high-profile test of antitrust enforcement under the Trump administration, which has shown a preference for settling cases. Just a week into the trial, the Justice Department exited the case after reaching a settlement with Live Nation. But 34 of the 40 states that had joined the federal lawsuit balked at the terms and continued the trial on their own.
In that settlement, which still requires approval from the judge, Live Nation agreed to set aside as much as $281 million to settle claims from the states involved in the case. But only six states — Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Dakota — have confirmed they would join the settlement and, according to court filings, would share a total of $18.6 million.
The trial featured testimony from top Live Nation executives, including its longtime chief executive, Michael Rapino, along with businesspeople from rival concert and ticketing companies and a battery of economists retained as expert witnesses by both sides.
But star power was mostly absent. Ben Lovett, a member of the band Mumford & Sons who also operates a venue business, was heard in a video deposition. Kid Rock, the outspoken rap-rock star who had been named as a possible witness, never testified. (Managers of Drake and Dave Matthews spoke, with praise for Live Nation.)
In its complaint, filed in 2024 under the Biden administration, the government accused Live Nation of operating an illegal monopoly that stifles competition and hinders innovation in the live entertainment industry, driving up ticket prices for millions of fans.
The case was the culmination of years of scrutiny of Live Nation, which had promised that combining with Ticketmaster would benefit artists and fans. In 2019, the Justice Department found that Live Nation had “repeatedly” threatened venues in violation of an agreement, known as a consent decree, that the company had signed with the government, which set guidelines about how the merged company was allowed to behave.
Jeffrey L. Kessler, an antitrust lawyer, was hired by the states after the settlement, with just days to prepare for the complex case. In closing arguments last week, he told the jury that Live Nation was “a monopolist who views itself to be above the law” and that “it is time to hold them accountable.”
The government told the jury that Live Nation had monopolized ticketing at what it called “major concert venues” — a selection of amphitheaters and arenas — and threatened operators that they would lose access to Live Nation’s popular concert tours if they did not use Ticketmaster.
Artists, the government argued, are also blocked from using Live Nation’s outdoor amphitheaters if they do not use Live Nation as a promoter.
Live Nation has insisted it is not a monopoly, arguing that it faces vigorous competition in concert promotion and ticketing, and that it does not issue threats to venues, artists or anyone else.
Jeffrey L. Kessler, an antitrust lawyer, was hired by the states after the settlement, with just days to prepare for the complex case. In closing arguments last week, he told the jury that Live Nation was “a monopolist who views itself to be above the law” and that “it is time to hold them accountable.”
The government told the jury that Live Nation had monopolized ticketing at what it called “major concert venues” — a selection of amphitheaters and arenas — and threatened operators that they would lose access to Live Nation’s popular concert tours if they did not use Ticketmaster.
Artists, the government argued, are also blocked from using Live Nation’s outdoor amphitheaters if they do not use Live Nation as a promoter.
Live Nation has insisted it is not a monopoly, arguing that it faces vigorous competition in concert promotion and ticketing, and that it does not issue threats to venues, artists or anyone else.
Roger Alford, who was ousted last year as the top deputy in the Justice Department’s antitrust division, and later criticized Live Nation for hiring people connected to the Trump administration to press its case, called the verdict a “major missed opportunity” for the federal government.
“They had victory in their grasp and then they just walked away from it,” he said. “To the extent the Department of Justice is not going to exercise its responsibility to enforce the antitrust laws, we now have confidence that the state attorneys general and the private bar will pick up the baton.”
On his way to the elevator, Dan Wall, a top Live Nation executive who was involved in negotiations with the Justice Department, spoke to a group of reporters. “Obviously we’re disappointed,” he said, but noted that his team was not anticipating an outcome much different than the settlement in March. “The game is not over by any means,” he added. “There’s a lot more game to play.
”
Though long stretches of the trial were filled with detailed testimony about contracts, ticketing fees and revenue splits, there were some fireworks. A week into the case, the Justice Department revealed its settlement with Live Nation — though it did not disclose the agreement immediately. That led to a tense confrontation outside the presence of the jury when Judge Subramanian angrily questioned government lawyers and called their delay “mind-boggling.”
Under the terms of that settlement, Live Nation not only agreed to make payments to the states but also to let outside promoters hold shows in its amphitheaters and said it would develop software to allow venues to use a variety of ticketing vendors if they wished. But most of the states rejected the deal — Phil Weiser, the attorney general of Colorado, has called it an “embarrassment” — and pressed on.
There were also internal Slack messages, unsealed by the court, in which two Live Nation ticketing employees bragged about charging fans excessive fees for parking and V.I.P. upgrades. One of the men joked he was “robbing them blind baby.” At trial, one of the employees, now a senior ticketing executive at Live Nation, apologized and said he had not been following company policy.
The jury also heard a recording of an expletive-laden phone call in which Mr. Rapino told the former chief of the Barclays Center in Brooklyn that it was “going to be a tough time to deliver tickets or concerts” once the arena dropped Ticketmaster in favor of an upstart ticketing competitor, SeatGeek.
John Abbamondi, the former Barclays chief, said he believed Live Nation had made good on what he characterized as a threat. In testimony, Mr. Rapino denied any retaliation.
The government also argued that Live Nation tried to prevent outside promoters from putting on shows in their amphitheaters. The government said the company had violated antitrust laws by effectively forcing artists to work with it if they wanted to participate in the amphitheater market, where Live Nation controls 42 of the top 50 venues.
Ticketmaster, which is by far the music world’s most widely used ticket platform, was frequently the subject of testimony as the government presented fan complaints over prices and technological failures, most famously in a botched presale for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. The company blamed the problems on a cyberattack.
Live Nation argued that Ticketmaster wins business because it is the best ticketing service, not because venues are threatened. But at one point, jurors were shown internal data that indicated fan satisfaction with Ticketmaster had dropped from 18 percent in 2021 to 1 percent in 2023. Live Nation said that data was part of a broad effort to identify customer complaints and improve service.
But Live Nation told the court that competition in the ticketing market had increased, and a number of witnesses from venues testified that Ticketmaster was the most reliable, useful and recognized ticketing platform. An executive from the Barclays Center told the jury that problems with SeatGeek had caused various issues for the arena before it switched back to Ticketmaster.
As part of its defense, Live Nation said the government had “gerrymandered” the markets at issue in the case in a way that overstated its power.
The government selected a group of 257 amphitheaters and arenas it defined as “major concert venues,” of which it said 70 percent were controlled by Live Nation, and that Ticketmaster handled 86 percent of the ticketing for concerts in those venues.
“That is a market they have made up for purposes of this litigation,” Mr. Marriott said in his closing argument. The true market for concerts is much larger, he said, and Live Nation holds a smaller share.
Anusha Bayya and David McCabe contributed reporting.
Ben Sisario, a reporter covering music and the music industry, has been writing for The Times for more than 20 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment