Live Nation antitrust trial nears end as states and company make closings

Summary

Closing arguments concluded Thursday in Manhattan federal court in an antitrust trial accusing Live Nation Entertainment and its Ticketmaster ticketing unit of monopolizing the live concert industry and driving up concert prices. The case, brought by 34 states, was before a jury presided over by Judge Arun Subramanian, and jurors were instructed on the law after arguments ended. Deliberations were expected to begin Friday.

In the states’ closing, attorney Jeffrey Kessler urged the jury to conclude that the evidence showed Live Nation and Ticketmaster “violated antitrust laws and it is time to hold them accountable.” Kessler told jurors that because this is a civil trial, the states needed to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard—more than 50%—to prove that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally wielded monopoly power.

Kessler characterized Live Nation as a “monopolistic bully” and argued that the company used strategies that, in his view, kept strengthening what he described as a monopoly position. He told jurors that Live Nation’s share of the live concert market—cited in court as 86%—showed monopoly power, and he also referenced an additional market share figure of 73% when sports events were included.

Live Nation’s lawyer, David Marriott, responded by arguing that the states did not prove a monopolist’s illegal conduct. Marriott said the states “can’t, and they didn’t,” referring to the argument that they failed to show Live Nation acted as a monopolist. He told the jury that Live Nation and Ticketmaster faced more competition than ever and that the company plays fairly amid what he described as a booming concert business across the United States.

Marriott also argued that the company’s scale was not, by itself, unlawful. “We are the biggest entertainment company and ticketer in the country. We’re not hiding from that fact,” he said. He added: “We are big. That is not against the laws in the United States. Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States.”

Marriott told jurors that Live Nation’s approach is to “outflank and outcompete” rivals and that the jury should not punish the company based on internal communications the states presented. He pointed to testimony involving messages in which employees described competitors as “fierce competitors” and discussed efforts to crush them. He argued that such communications do not prove an antitrust violation.

As part of the company’s closing, Marriott defended Live Nation’s handling of a worker whose remarks came up at trial. He said the company did not immediately fire an employee who testified that he wrote messages from late 2021 through early 2023 mocking customers and using phrases such as “so stupid” and “robbing them blind, baby.” Marriott said, “People say, sometimes, stupid stuff,” and he described the comments as being made in discussion of the price of lawn chairs and parking. “We don’t condone that. But we also don’t just ax somebody because they made a mistake years in the past,” Marriott said.

Marriott further argued that the entertainment industry has been thriving during the same period and that fans and artists are benefiting. He told the jury that venues and artists are “doing better than ever,” and he said Live Nation’s job is to help venues and artists make money. “Our job is to help venues and artists make money. We don’t make excuses for that,” he said.

The trial came after a settlement in the parallel case brought by the federal government. According to the court proceedings described in the record, the government’s lawsuit settled in 2024 after reaching concessions from Live Nation, including in the sale of tickets at dozens of the company’s amphitheaters. That settlement delayed the trial for a week while the states conducted mostly unsuccessful negotiations with Live Nation.

After both sides finished their closings, Judge Arun Subramanian instructed the jury on the law. Jurors were expected to start deliberations Friday, bringing the case to the point where they would decide whether the states met their civil burden of proof that Live Nation and Ticketmaster committed illegal monopoly conduct.