Ticketmaster’s Concert Ticketing: Stranglehold or Joy Bringer?
▼ Summary
– The US Justice Department and state attorneys general allege Live Nation-Ticketmaster is an illegal monopolist that uses a “flywheel” of power to lock in venues and retaliates against those considering switching to rivals.
– Live Nation’s defense argues it operates lawfully to bring joy, disputes the government’s market share figures, and claims competitive actions are not threats but simply business.
– The trial’s outcome could lead to a breakup of Live Nation-Ticketmaster if the jury finds it liable, representing a major test for recent government antitrust enforcement efforts.
– A key point of contention is the company’s conduct with venues like the Barclays Center, which the DOJ cites as punitive retaliation, while Live Nation attributes its return to a rival’s failure.
– Evidence at trial will include the Taylor Swift ticketing meltdown, cited as monopolistic underinvestment, and testimony from venue executives, artists, and company officials like CEO Michael Rapino.
The future of live entertainment hangs in the balance as a landmark antitrust trial begins, pitting federal and state regulators against the industry giant Live Nation-Ticketmaster. In opening statements, the government painted a picture of a corporate behemoth using its immense power to stifle competition and control the market, while the company defended its practices as lawful and focused on delivering joy to fans. The outcome of this case could reshape how concerts are ticketed and venues are managed for years to come.
Government lawyers argued that Live Nation-Ticketmaster has constructed a “flywheel” of power that locks venues and artists into its ecosystem through coercion and retaliation. They claim the company’s dominance, estimated at 86% for primary ticketing at major concert venues and 78% for large amphitheater use, allows it to punish those who consider using rivals. One attorney stated that competitors felt compelled to offer “retaliation insurance” to potential clients. A central example involves the Barclays Center, which allegedly faced punishment when it briefly switched away from Ticketmaster before returning.
In stark contrast, Live Nation’s defense team presented an energetic and positive vision. Their counsel emphasized the company’s mission to spread joy, highlighting the increased number of concert venues available today. They argued that saying you provide a superior service is not a threat, but simply a statement of fact. The defense sought to humanize the corporation, noting it is made up of people dedicated to doing the right thing, and shared personal anecdotes about the value of live events.
A key point of contention is the true scope of Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s market power. The government’s figures focus on specific concert segments, while the defense counters that including all stadiums and arenas, many used for sports, shrinks their market share significantly to 40% in ticketing and 18% in venues. They also dismissed the notion of retaliation in the Barclays Center case, attributing the return to SeatGeek’s failure to perform adequately.
The now-infamous Taylor Swift ticketing meltdown is expected to be cited as evidence of a monopolist’s underinvestment in crucial technology. Prosecutors may use it to demonstrate a lack of competitive pressure to innovate. Live Nation’s counsel countered that the incident was due to a cyberattack and that their system ultimately handled the unprecedented demand as well as any could.
The trial will feature testimony from a wide array of witnesses, including former venue executives, rival ticketing company leaders, artists, and even music fans. A particular focus will be on a heated call involving Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, which the defense characterized as mere frustration over a lost contract, not an illegal threat. The jury’s ultimate task is to decide whether the company’s practices are illegal monopolization or simply aggressive, lawful competition in a complex industry. Their verdict could lead to the company’s breakup or represent a significant setback for regulatory efforts to curb corporate consolidation.
(Source: The Verge)
