NEW YORK (AP) — A jury has found that concert giant Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary had a harmful monopoly over big concert venues, dealing the company a loss in a lawsuit over claims brought by dozens of U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
A Manhattan federal jury deliberated for four days before reaching its decision Wednesday in the closely watched case, which has offered fans crucial insights into a business that dominates live entertainment in the U.S. and beyond.
“It’s a great day for antitrust law,” attorney Jeffrey Kessler remarked outside the courthouse. His team represented the states in the lawsuit against Live Nation.
The proceedings brought the CEO of Live Nation, Michael Rapino, to the witness stand, where he faced tough questioning. He sought to explain the notorious ticketing issues arising from a cyberattack during the highly publicized Taylor Swift ticket sales event last year.
The trial unearthed internal communications within Live Nation, revealing employee comments branding ticket prices as outrageous and expressing disdain for customers. The involved employee later labeled his comments as immature and unacceptable.
Live Nation, which operates a vast number of venues, is recognized as the world’s largest ticket seller for live events. The trial's verdict could result in financial damages amounting to hundreds of millions for overcharging consumers, including a jury verdict of $1.72 per ticket in 22 states. Further penalties may lead the company to divest itself of certain entities, including owned venues.
The civil case, initially led by the U.S. federal government, accused Live Nation of anti-competitive practices that inhibit venue diversity in ticket sales. Kessler asserted, It is time to hold them accountable, referring to the monopolistic practices.
While Live Nation defended its market position as a result of business excellence, the evidence suggested otherwise.
The case has illuminated the longstanding discontent expressed by artists and consumers regarding Ticketmaster, with figures like Pearl Jam challenging its practices as far back as the 1990s.
Following substantial state-led efforts, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport emphasized the ruling's significance, indicating it affirms accusations of exploitation of consumers and unfair market advantages. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the outcome a substantial victory in protecting the economy from monopolistic behavior.
As the case moves toward the remedies phase, the implications of the verdict remain to be fully realized.
