Live Nation Moves to Dismiss Entire US Department of Justice Antitrust Case — Ripping the Feds’ Case as Flimsy
Photo Credit: Nick Youngson / CC by 3.0
Live Nation files a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s antitrust case, arguing that the government fails to prove the company operates as a monopoly.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster hope to end the Department of Justice’s antitrust case before it goes to trial. The ticketing giant’s attorneys filed a 51-page summary-judgment motion that argues the claims of the DOJ’s case fail to prove that the company operates like a monopoly.
Submitted to Federal Judge Arun Subramanian in the Southern District of New York, the filing asserts the government’s lawsuit is an overreach that lacks evidence. Live Nation’s attorneys claim that the DOJ began the litigation with “harsh accusations” against the company. The government’s filing accuses Live Nation of operating “multiple, self-reinforcing monopolies” with “systematic” and “intentional” corruption of competition across “virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem.”
“Strong words,” write Live Nation’s lawyers. “If there was a lick of truth to them, one would expect plaintiffs to now have mountains of evidence. […] And yet […] plaintiffs have barely a molehill.”
Live Nation argues that the government has not proven the key element of its case, that the company holds “monopoly power.” The company notes that “monopoly power is the foundational element of every monopoly maintenance case,” but insists that the DOJ has failed to make its case.
The DOJ case, according to Live Nation, is built on inferences and derivative legal arguments, rather than relying on traditional evidence of monopoly power, such as high prices or significant barriers to entry. Live Nation says the DOJ’s case relies on “gerrymandered” market definitions to make its case; it cites the government’s use of a “convoluted formula” to define a “major concert venue” and singling out venues with capacities above 8,000 that host 10 or more concerts during at least one year between 2017 and 2024. Therefore, stadiums, large theaters, smaller amphitheaters, and many other common venues are excluded.
Live Nation claims this structure ignores how concert business competition actually works, that “made-for-litigation markets plainly do not encompass ‘the area of effective competition’ that the law requires.” It points out that rival ticketing companies like SeatGeek, AXS, Eventim, and Paciolan compete broadly and do not restrict their efforts to the DOJ’s definition of a venue.
According to Live Nation’s attorneys, the DOJ’s narrowed market definition is the only way the government can claim the company has a monopoly.
“Far from having the ‘power to exclude the competition,’ Ticketmaster has lost over 30 points of market share since the merger [of Live Nation and Ticketmaster in 2011],” the company’s attorneys write.
Further, Live Nation argues that long-term exclusive ticketing contracts have been the industry standard in North America for decades and remain the preferred method by venues because it leads to higher up-front payments and reduced consumer confusion, among other boons.
“Every venue witness has testified that they seek and prefer exclusive ticketing contracts,” Live Nation’s attorneys claim, arguing that no venue manager interviewed in the lawsuit claimed to be coerced into an exclusive contract or prevented from pursuing one.
The rest of the government’s evidence, according to Live Nation’s filing, comes from rival ticketing companies, which Live Nation calls inadmissible hearsay. Live Nation also notes that similar allegations were investigated by the DOJ in 2019, which led to a modification of the consent decree, but not a finding of misconduct.
Attorneys for the government will have the opportunity to file a response in the coming weeks, before Judge Subramanian decides whether the case will proceed to trial. Should the summary-judgment motion be granted, much or all of the DOJ’s case could be dismissed outright, or required to be refiled.
