Live Nation challenges merits of DOJ antitrust suit joined by Brown and others

Live Nation Entertainment Inc. is fighting an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and 30 attorneys general, including Maryland's, a suit it says contains absurd allegations and will do little good for the consumers.

The DOJ is not helping consumers with their real-world problems, according to the statement released Thursday by Dan Wall, Live Nation's executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs. This is why government has never been more popular because it claims to solve your problems when instead it panders to a narrow set of political interests.

But Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D), who joined the lawsuit last week, said Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the lawsuit's targets, control too much of the market to the detriment of consumers.

When the world's largest live entertainment company illegally dominates ticket sales, artist management and promotion, and venue selection, it's the fans who suffer the most, Brown said in A declaration. This illegal conduct drives up prices, leaves fans with poor customer service, and limits people's access to live shows.

Brown said Live Nation serves as the exclusive ticket office for all major concert venues in the state, including The Fillmore in Silver Spring, Pier Six Pavilion in Baltimore and Maryland Hall in Annapolis.

The suit, filed Thursday, claims Live Nation Entertainment Inc. has illegally monopolized the entertainment industry. THE 128 page suit claims that Live Nation, which merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, controls at least 80% of primary ticketing at major concert venues.

Additionally, the suit alleges that Live Nation manages more than 400 musical artists, owns or controls more than 265 music venues in North America, including at least 60 of the 100 largest amphitheaters in the United States. Its closest rival has only a handful of premier amphitheaters. amphitheatres.

The suit claims that with a monopoly on the music venue market, Live Nation charged customers higher fees and limited consumer choices.

Live Nation, according to the suit, generates more than $22 billion in revenue annually globally, divided into three segments: concerts, ticketing, sponsorship and advertising.

Despite a Department of Justice consent decree issued when Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010 – and updated in 2020 for five additional years – the suit alleges that various antitrust laws were violated.

The live music industry, like other highly concentrated industries, is largely controlled by a well-known group of insiders who run several interconnected companies with numerous conflicts of interest, the suit alleges.

These insiders have spent decades amassing, strengthening, and wielding their power, particularly against anyone who seeks to disrupt the industry's now-standard business practices and conduct. These business practices can, and often do, work against the interests of those with relatively little power and influence, particularly working musicians and fans,” he said.

United States Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a report when the lawsuit was announced, it's time to disband Live Nation-Ticketmaster.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asks the court to enjoin Live Nation from engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices; ask him to divest himself of Ticketmaster or no longer own it; and guarantee redress to all victims harmed by Live Nations' allegedly anti-competitive system.

Other state attorneys general who have joined the suit include those of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New York and Washington, DC, among others.

Response from Live Nation

The company released a detailed report answer to the chase which includes tables and graphs showing that it has a relatively low profit margin compared to other companies; disputing as fallacious the claim that Oak View Group, a company that has never promoted concerts, was a potential rival to Live Nation; and asserting that exclusivity is a product of competition for sites and not an anti-competitive practice.

Wall wrote that the DOJ authorized the merger with Ticketmaster in 2010 and appointed someone within the federal agency to closely monitor Ticketmasters' negotiations with theaters and to ensure that the company was not using the concert content to conclude ticketing agreements.

Wall pointed to an alleged antitrust violation cited in the suit that he said involved the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York — although the center was not specifically named. Wall said the alleged offense occurred at a time when the center temporarily switched from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek.

According to Billboard in January 2023, Barclays Center discontinued SeatGeek due to ongoing technical issues with ticket sales.

Even if the DOJ's version of the Barclays story were true (which it is not), violating the consent decree regarding one site out of thousands would not constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, which are notoriously concerned competition and not competitors. »Wall wrote.

Ultimately, nothing in this isolated incident (which the DOJ is willfully misrepresenting) or anything else in this complaint allows the DOJ to ignore, rescind, and upend the agreement it entered into approving the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger and his own statements. to a federal judge that the vertical suit complaints were unfounded,” he wrote.