David Dahlquist opened the antitrust trial in Manhattan federal court for the U.S. Justice Department by framing the case as one about market power in concert ticketing, arguing that the government could show Live Nation Entertainment’s control over competition violates antitrust law. Speaking to the jury, Dahlquist said, “This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” and added that “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.” The trial, before Judge Arun Subramanian, is set to run for about six weeks of evidence presentation, followed by jurors’ deliberations on whether the companies broke the law.
Ticketmaster, which the government is challenging as part of the broader Live Nation organization, is described in the court proceedings as the world’s largest ticket seller across live music, sports and theater, and it was established in 1976 before merging with Live Nation in 2010. The lawsuit was filed in 2024, and the Justice Department’s theory centers on whether Live Nation and Ticketmaster have dominated the industry by restricting rivals and controlling multiple layers of the concert business.
Dahlquist used the companies’ effort to sell Taylor Swift tickets in 2022 as an example during opening statements. He pointed to the site outage and backlash that followed the presale for Swift’s Eras Tour, which in turn prompted congressional hearings and bills in state legislatures aimed at consumer protections around ticketing.
The defense disputed the government’s account of what caused the 2022 debacle and how the episode fits into the antitrust allegations. Dahlquist said the companies’ effort for the Swift presale drew outrage in November 2022 when Ticketmaster’s site crashed during the presale event; Live Nation and Ticketmaster said later that the site was overwhelmed by both fans and bots that were posing as consumers to scoop up tickets and sell them on secondary sites.
In court, the Justice Department also emphasized contract terms and venue access as part of its monopoly theory. Dahlquist said Live Nation’s alleged anti-competitive practices include using long-term contracts ranging from five to seven years that keep venues from choosing rivals and limit venues from using multiple ticket sellers. The government’s case is that these arrangements, combined with the companies’ scale, suppressed competitive alternatives in ticketing and related concert promotion functions.
Arguing for the companies, David Marriott took a different approach, telling the jury, “We’ll let the numbers do the talking,” and adding, “We do not have monopoly power.” Marriott told the court that the government’s claims about the companies’ market position exaggerated how much Live Nation and Ticketmaster make, including by disputing a claim that Ticketmaster pockets $7 per ticket, saying the company instead gets $5 and clears less than $2 after expenses.
Marriott also argued that Live Nation’s role in the industry goes beyond ticket sales and ties to artist support. He said Live Nation is the world’s biggest supporter of musical artists, enabling 159 million people in 2025 to see 11,000 artists at 55,000 concerts. He also said Live Nation and Ticketmaster are “all about bringing joy to people’s lives,” while maintaining that artists and teams set prices and decide how tickets are sold.
The court also heard that longstanding conflicts between Ticketmaster and artists predate the Live Nation merger. The proceedings referenced Pearl Jam’s challenge to the company in 1994—years before the 2010 merger—when the Justice Department ultimately declined to bring a case. Jurors will now hear the new evidence set for the coming weeks as the trial proceeds under Judge Arun Subramanian’s schedule.