Judge rejects Live Nation bid to dismiss US lawsuit claiming it monopolised live concerts
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
The May 2024 lawsuit accused Live Nation of monopolising markets for ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions.
PHOTO: REUTERS
NEW YORK – A federal judge on Feb 18 rejected Live Nation Entertainment’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the federal government and many US states accusing the company of illegally trying to dominate the live concert industry.
The decision by US District Judge Arun Subramanian cleared the way for a possible antitrust trial in Manhattan federal court, with jury selection scheduled to begin on March 2.
“There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Live Nation has used monopoly power to foreclose competition,” Judge Subramanian wrote.
Live Nation and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Shares of the Beverly Hills, California-based company fell more than 7 per cent in after-hours trading shortly after the decision, before recovering those losses.
The May 2024 lawsuit by the US Department of Justice, 39 states and Washington accused Live Nation of monopolising markets for ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions, harming fans as well as performers.
Fans and politicians have long urged regulators to re-examine Live Nation’s 2010 purchase of Ticketmaster.
They intensified their demands after Ticketmaster subjected fans of American pop star Taylor Swift to high prices and hours-long online queues for her 2022 Eras tour.
Judge Subramanian said the government plaintiffs can try to prove that Live Nation improperly tied use of its amphitheatres to concert promotion services, and illegally dominated the market for ticketing services to major concert venues.
The judge also said states can try to seek damages for ticket-buying fans, saying it was “reasonably foreseeable” that fans might have been harmed and that Live Nation’s antitrust-injury challenge “falls flat”.
Judge Subramanian dismissed other claims, including that Live Nation monopolised concert promotions and concert-booking services at major venues.
In seeking a dismissal, Live Nation denied exercising monopoly power and said there was no evidence its conduct harmed “consumer welfare”, such as by raising prices or reducing quality. It also said states lacked legal authority to sue on behalf of fans. REUTERS
