Final Arguments Entered in Live Nation-Ticketmaster Legal Battle

Photo Credit: appshunter.io

Is Live Nation a bully or is it just a really fierce competitor? Both sides enter their final arguments in Live Nation’s battle against 30+ state attorneys general.

While the states have argued that Live Nation controls a whopping 86% of major concert venues and uses its position of dominance across promotion and ticketing to bully venues that do not use Ticketmaster, Live Nation argues that it is simply a “fierce competitor.” Both sides have entered their final arguments in the much-discussed trial.

Jury deliberations are forthcoming to determine which side will prevail, though it’s difficult to say how serious a guilty verdict would be for a company that has already made a deal with the Department of Justice. But having done so might have only served to intensify the litigation from the 30-plus state attorneys general and the District of Columbia—and a forced split of Live Nation/Ticketmaster could, theoretically, still be on the table.

The federal government was leading the civil claims charge against Live Nation until it suddenly settled the suit it brought back in 2024, having allegedly been pressed by President Trump to do so. But the settlement only delayed proceedings for a week while the states geared up to go to bat.

On the states’ side, attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued that evidence has shown that the companies “violated antitrust laws, and it is time to hold them accountable.” He reminded jurors that because it was a civil trial, they only needed to find that the states had proven by more than 50% of the evidence that Live Nation and Ticketmaster wielded monopoly power.

To that end, he called the company a “monopolistic bully” that had employed practices to keep “digging the moat around the monopoly castle in order to protect their market position.” Notably, Live Nation controls 86% of the market for concerts and 73% of the market when sports events are included. This, Kessler said, proved its monopoly power.

But Live Nation lawyer David Marriott asserted that there is more competition than ever in the live events market and that the company has merely reaped the benefits of years of hard work that he claimed led to the best offerings in the industry. Marriott added that it “is not against the laws in the United States” to be “the biggest entertainment company and ticketer in the country.”

“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Marriott said, adding that the jury should not punish the company for simply trying to “outflank and outcompete” its competitors.

Further, Marriott insisted that the statements read during the trial, including the private Slack conversations between two Live Nation employees, were merely distractions from the real evidence in the case, which he said actually favored the company.

It’s been a landmark case in the music industry, regardless of its ultimate outcome. Jury deliberations are expected to begin on Friday.