The Price of a Ticket: Live Nation, Monopoly, and Antitrust in Action
In May of 2024, the U.S. The Justice Department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, in the case United States v. Live Nation Entertainment. The Justice Department, along with 30 state and district attorneys general, claimed that Live Nation had been monopolizing the live entertainment industry, performing unlawful conduct by limiting competition within the market. [1] Attorney General Merrick B. Garland alleged that “Live Nation has not only deployed anticompetitive tactics to coerce artists and venues into using its services and to charge fans excessive fees – it has also worked strategically, and illegally, to eliminate the threat of potential rivals from emerging across any of its businesses.” [2]
The Department of Justice claimed that Live Nation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which declares that “every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine. . . .” Depending on the court's judgment, they could be penalized with a fine of up to $100,000,000 if they are a corporation, $1,000,000 if they are an individual, or up to 10 years’ imprisonment. [3]
Live Nation, on the other hand, stresses the fact that commission margins in ticketing are relatively modest compared to other digital businesses, asserting that it does not enjoy exorbitant pricing power. They also noted that there are many factors apart from Live Nation that influence ticket prices such as the popularity of the artist, production costs, supply/demand, and secondary resale among others. The company argues that integrated business would maintain better coordination and service at a lower net cost compared to disintegrated operations. [4]
Many Live Nation customers expressed complaints about Ticketmaster’s inability to handle the demand for tickets, deceptive pricing and hidden fees, manipulation of ticket resale markets, and poor customer service. The height of public frustration occurred during Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour when system failures and pricing issues by Ticketmaster came under very widespread public backlash, accompanied by scrutiny from Congress. [5]
This issue can be viewed as a consequence of the 2010 merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster. During that time, consumers were concerned that the merger of the two music giants would severely restrict competition and drive up ticket costs. However, to merge, they had to agree to a set of conditions made by the Department of Justice in a consent decree. [6] This included subjecting Ticketmaster to a requirement to either provide its ticketing data to other managers and promoters or refrain from utilizing the data in its management and promotional activities. Additionally, to lower the expenses associated with switching ticketing services, Ticketmaster must also have its ticketing data available to its current venue clients upon request. [7]
The Justice Department proceeded to monitor Live Nation and Ticketmaster for ten years to ensure these conditions were fulfilled, as the settlement agreement contained unique provisions to support that continuous supervision, such as an increased obligation to provide information on any future mergers. Together, these conditions were designed to prevent the post-merger company from using its new, profitable standing to hinder any of its rivals from having competitive advantages in the market. [8]
It seems that these provisions were not enough to combat the control Live Nation has over the live entertainment industry, given that "in taking this approach, the DOJ primarily relied on behavior remedies rather than structural changes, a strategy that would later be criticized as insufficient to prevent anticompetitive practices." [9] The measures' long-term efficacy was also called into question due to their reliance on industry self-reporting and temporary monitoring. The Department of Justice misjudged the merger's long-term consequences on market dynamics in the live entertainment sector by concentrating on minor, immediate competitive effects and primarily using behavioral remedies. [10] This calls into question what appropriate and effective anti-monopolistic actions would look like, considering that behavioral remedies seem to fail, prompting legal debates regarding whether the merger should have been allowed in the first place, and if a stricter agreement was necessary.
While the case is still ongoing, the current status of the lawsuit is that Judge Arun Subramanian recently rejected Live Nation's partial attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed, giving New York Attorney General Letitia James an important victory in March of 2025. [11]
Looking at the implications of this lawsuit, if the Department of Justice wins, they will compel Ticketmaster to divest. Their goal is to reverse the 2010 merger and for Ticketmaster to split off from Live Nation as a stand-alone business, believing that it will lead to a drop in ticket prices. Live Nation argues the opposite of the Justice Department’s contention that Ticketmaster's divestment will result in reduced prices. They warn that the efficiencies—reduced transaction costs, streamlined coordination, unified data systems, and strategic event management—that emerge when a promoter and a ticketer are vertically integrated will be compromised if these two businesses are split up, ultimately resulting in higher costs and a worse system for fans. [12]
Overall, this case underlines how the Department of Justice has moved to more aggressively pursuing structural remedies in its antitrust enforcement, thereby correcting the failures that resulted from relying on behavioral remedies post the 2010 merger. Whether the Department of Justice wins or loses, this case will likely set the new legal test for challenging vertical integration and monopoly practices in the age of digital technology across industries. [13]
Sources
U.S. Department of Justice, “U.S. And Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C.,” May 23, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-live-nation-entertainment-inc-and-ticketmaster-llc.
U.S. Department of Justice, “Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks on Lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets across the Live Concert Industry,” May 23, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-lawsuit-against-live-nation.
LII / Legal Information Institute, “15 U.S. Code § 2 - Monopolizing Trade a Felony; Penalty,” 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2.
Michael Carrier, Jon Baker, Krista Brown, Dean Budnick, Steve Calkins, Kevin Erickson, Herb Hovenkamp, and Doug Melamed, “The Antitrust Case against Live Nation Entertainment,” Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law 15. Accessed October 13, 2025, https://doi.org/10.7282/00000520.
Imre S. Szalai, "Trouble, Trouble, Trouble: Taylor Swift, Ticketmaster, and Arbitration," Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 27, no. 2 (Winter 2024): 301-[x].
Ben Sisario, “Justice Dept. Clears Ticketmaster-Live Nation Merger,” New York Times, January 25, 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/business/26ticket.html.
U.S. Department of Justice, “The TicketMaster/Live Nation Merger Review and Consent Decree in Perspective,” June 25, 2015, https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/speech/ticketmasterlive-nation-merger-review-and-consent-decree-perspective.
U.S. Department of Justice, “Competitive Impact Statement,” June 25, 2015, https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/competitive-impact-statement-209.
Katya Tolunsky, "Rewriting the Antitrust Setlist: Examining the Live Nation-Ticketmaster Lawsuit and Its Implications for Modern Antitrust Law," Columbia Undergraduate Law Review 21, no. 1 (Fall 2024): 45-68.
Ibid.
New York State Attorney General, “Attorney General James Announces Court Win Allowing Lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster to Continue,” March 14, 2025, https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-announces-court-win-allowing-lawsuit-against-live-nation.
UW School of Law, “Breaking down the DOJ’s Lawsuit against Live Nation | UW School of Law,” July 12, 2024, https://www.law.uw.edu/news-events/news/2024/live-nation.
Scott Andrzejewski, “Antitrust Complaints Filed against Ticketmaster and Live Nation in California: An Overview and Analysis,” University of Chicago Business Law Review, 2023, https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/antitrust-complaints-filed-against-ticketmaster-and-live-nation-california-overview.