USA v. Live Nation Trial Kicks Off With Opening Arguments Clash

Photo Credit: Dahlquist

Day one of the high-stakes USA v. Live Nation trial is in the books, and following opening arguments, “logistical issues” delayed an initial witness testimony until tomorrow. Meanwhile, the promoter has fired off fresh motions in an attempt to exclude artist-compensation evidence.

As we previously broke down, Live Nation’s prior set of motions – including an interlocutory appeal push – also arrived rather close to the trial kickoff. And while Judge Arun Subramanian denied all these motions, the Ticketmaster parent isn’t ready to abandon 11th hour requests.

Yesterday – meaning when jury selection was underway – Live Nation formally sought oral argument on a series of additional motions in limine. In short, the first of the motions seeks to exclude evidence and arguments concerning artist compensation (“that Live Nation is somehow harming competition by paying artists too much”).

The second motion, for its part, would bar the government from exploring “irrelevant, highly prejudicial” evidence and arguments suggesting “that Live Nation’s 2018 acquisition of certain assets of Songkick—a small company originally known as CrowdSurge—was anticompetitive or unlawful.”

To state the obvious, should the court green-light the motion, it’d have to schedule the argument around the already-underway trial.

Speaking of that trial, DOJ attorney David Dahlquist got the opening-argument ball rolling a little after 10 AM local time, according to Inner City Press’ Matthew Russell Lee.

Dahlquist’s remarks won’t come as a surprise to those who’ve followed fan and lawmaker criticism of Live Nation over the years. In summary, the live entertainment giant allegedly abuses its massive market share and joint promotion-ticketing reach en route to limiting choice for artists, venues, and customers.

Additionally, Dahlquist emphasized Live Nation’s alleged habit of “gouging the public,” touched on the company’s record financials, and, in alleging that Ticketmaster’s “technology is held together by duct tape,” dredged up the Taylor Swift Eras Tour ticketing fiasco.

Dahlquist then concluded the opening argument by bringing everything together with an overview of CEO Michael Rapino’s alleged “threats” against venues that partnered (or considered partnering) with other ticketing providers.

After that, New York assistant AG Jonathan Hatch, with damages front of mind, briefly explored the idea that Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s alleged ticketing stranglehold minimizes competition and causes fans to pay more.

A short break later, Live Nation attorney David Marriott came out swinging against the central monopoly claim and framed his client as a pro-artist and -fan company, operating, record financials aside, on a roughly 2% (promoting) profit margin.

Building on the points, Marriott presented Live Nation/Ticketmaster as a successful but not completely dominant market force, citing Ticketmaster’s “40% share” and indicating that “95% of shows don’t sell out.”

The attorney finished by refuting specific claims: According to Marriott, the Swift ticketing episode resulted from a cyberattack and ultra-strong demand; artists themselves purportedly prefer to work with Live Nation; and Rapino’s heated years-old phone call with now-former Madison Square Garden Company exec John Abbamondi, despite its colorful language, allegedly didn’t involve any “supposed threats.”

Subsequently, the initially mentioned “logistical issues” delayed the witness testimony and prompted the court to call it a day before two o’clock local time.