A federal judge on April 11 denied Live Nation’s bid to dismiss a private lawsuit brought by consumers in 2022, ruling that the plaintiffs had antitrust standing to pursue the next stage of litigation, including discovery and pretrial motions.
And a different judge in March denied Live Nation’s effort to narrow the case brought last year by the DOJ and dozens of states, including California and New York. That case seeks structural remedies, including a potential breakup of the live entertainment company, which is the world’s largest concert promoter.
The cases are moving forward as President Donald Trump has made it a priority to address anticompetitive conduct in the live entertainment industry. In March, he ordered the Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ to report on unfair practices and recommend regulations or legislation to protect consumers.
Both lawsuits accuse Live Nation of monopolistic practices that locked venues into long-term exclusive contracts and spiked ticket prices.
“The pressure is on,” said Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute. “Live Nation is now juggling a private case, a very strong federal-state case, and will have their hands full litigating on all fronts.”
Live Nation didn’t respond to requests for comment but said in a financial filing in February that an unfavorable outcome in the DOJ case “could adversely affect our business and operating results.” The DOJ also didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Remedies
Live Nation, which had more than $23 billion in revenue in fiscal 2024, faces potential treble damages from the private suit and additional expenses needed for discovery and lining up economists and witnesses. The DOJ’s suit against Live Nation requests a divestiture of Ticketmaster, posing a more existential threat to the company.
The mere threat of a breakup could lead to an entirely different remedy, such as a settlement with Live Nation; the Trump administration has signaled openness to deals with companies.
The private case, a would-be class action, was brought by consumers who allege they paid more than they should have for concert tickets and associated fees due to Live Nation’s anticompetitive conduct. They seek damages and an order barring Live Nation from the alleged conduct.
Judge George H. Wu of the US District Court for the Central District of California found those consumer plaintiffs had standing to bring the case and that they adequately alleged that companies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that restrain trade.
It’s not surprising that the private case moved forward, especially given that the judge in the DOJ suit found the state plaintiffs also plausibly alleged antitrust standing, said Kathleen Bradish, vice president and director of legal advocacy for the American Antitrust Institute.
The states sued in their “parens patriae” capacity, claiming consumers paid inflated ticket prices to Ticketmaster. Live Nation argued that consumers were too far removed to have standing, but the judge disagreed.
“The likelihood that the consumer action will succeed has gone up significantly,” Bradish said of the private suit, adding that damages claims will continue to increase as the alleged anticompetitive conduct continues. “Once you pass the motion to dismiss, that really makes it consequential for the company to keep doing the practice.”
Wu also held that the consumer plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Live Nation’s power in the secondary ticketing market for major concert venues. Proving market power is critical to establishing a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits attempts to monopolize.
DOJ Priorities
The DOJ under Trump has stayed aggressive in antitrust enforcement against large companies, including tech giants like
Abigail Slater, head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, said in a statement last week that the court’s ruling was clear: “Google is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power.”
The DOJ’s antitrust division in April met with stakeholders and market participants to discuss competition issues in the entertainment industry.
Ticketmaster in 2010 became a wholly owned subsidiary of Live Nation, which owns, operates and books shows in venues across the country. Ticketmaster provides venues with primary ticketing services for concerts and also controls a share of ticket resales.
The merged company saw significant backlash from lawmakers and fans after Ticketmaster canceled its public ticket sales for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour when its portal for concert tickets crashed.
Next Steps
The judge presiding over the DOJ case said in a court filing that depositions must be completed by June 27 and discovery finished by October. A potential trial is set for March 2026.
The cases’ overlap could broaden as they proceed: Consumer plaintiffs are likely to request documents already provided to DOJ, which can conduct extensive discovery before filing suit.
“For them, this is just the beginning of discovery; for DOJ and the states, they get more discovery now,” Bradish said. “It’s certainly going to be a period of expense and burden for Ticketmaster and Live Nation.”
Live Nation and Ticketmaster are represented by Latham & Watkins LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.
The case is Heckman v. Live Nation Ent. Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 2:22-cv-00047, 4/11/25.
