Live Nation, Ticketmaster agree to settle antitrust lawsuit with DOJ

The Justice Department has reached a tentative settlement agreement in its antitrust suit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation Entertainment, which would spare the business from the threat of being broken apart amid government claims it held an illegal monopoly over concerts and other events.

The existence of the deal, which must still be approved by a judge, was disclosed Monday in federal court in Manhattan, where an antitrust trial against the entertainment behemoth began last week. The news drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, who noted that he had not been informed of the agreement until late Sunday, though government lawyers acknowledged a tentative term sheet had been signed days before.

The agreement is also facing other headwinds. Several state and district attorneys general who had signed onto the Justice Department’s suit against Live Nation – including those in New York and D.C. – have indicated they have serious concerns about the terms. Some vowed to continue their litigation against the company.

While a summary of the agreement has not yet been filed in court, a senior Justice Department official said the settlement would allow competitors to sell certain tickets on Ticketmaster platforms and make it easier for promoters to compete for business at venues owned by the companies. It would also require Live Nation to divest ownership of 13 amphitheaters across the country, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail aspects of the agreement that had not yet been made public.

Further, the deal would limit exclusivity contracts Ticketmaster imposes on venues, requiring them to use its system for ticket sales, to four years, the official said. In addition, Live Nation would have to pay financial damages of up to $280 million to states that joined the settlement.

The Justice Department’s case – joined by more than 30 state and district attorneys general – alleged Live Nation used threats, retaliation and other economic tactics to push out competitors and maintain an iron grip on nearly all aspects of the live entertainment business, including promotion and ticket sales.

Those tactics, government lawyers argued, have allowed Live Nation to evolve into an illegal and harmful “monopolist” – with the power to box out rivals, reduce consumer choices and raise ticket prices.

Department officials said several states have already agreed to sign onto the deal but declined to specify how many, saying negotiations continue. Other states involved appeared to have already firmly opted out.

“The settlement recently announced with the U.S. Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers. We cannot agree to it,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. James said that attorneys general in 25 other states and the District of Columbia also plan to keep fighting in court.

If the government had proven its case at trial, it could have asked the judge to split up the entertainment behemoth, which was formed in 2010 when Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation.

Since then, the Beverly Hills, California-based company has publicly clashed with popular artists, including Taylor Swift, and their fans.

A surge of demand for Swift presale tickets in 2022 crashed Ticketmaster and left fans unable to buy seats for her 2023 tour. The widely documented incident put a fresh spotlight on the company, its dominance in ticketing and the fees that it charges consumers.

A major part of the agreement will force Ticketmaster to allow other companies to list tickets through their technology, a move that officials say should drive down ticket prices. But some concert industry insiders aren’t convinced that would ultimately help consumers. They noted that many resale platforms offer pricey tickets or even speculative ones, which is when sellers create listings for tickets they don’t have.

Stephen Parker, the executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, said the agreement could create confusion “for fans that are just Googling a show and wanting to buy tickets to it and not realizing that they’re buying from a reseller versus a primary ticketing provider or venue.”