Ticketmaster’s Fate in Jury’s Hands

The sheer volume of consumer complaints about Ticketmaster has overwhelmed state attorneys general, with Pennsylvania’s office even asking residents for patience. This public pressure has fueled a major legal challenge, with over 30 states pursuing claims that Live Nation-Ticketmaster illegally monopolized segments of the concert industry, continuing their fight even after the federal government settled its own case. A jury is now poised to decide whether the company’s controversial business practices are merely frustrating or actually unlawful.

Closing arguments are set for Thursday in this pivotal antitrust trial, which began in early March. The state attorneys general took a significant risk by proceeding after the Justice Department settled just one week into the proceedings. Their gamble hinges on securing not just a victory, but more substantial relief for consumers and a permanent shift in the competitive landscape of U. S. music touring, which could include a potential corporate breakup. The states’ core argument is that Live Nation-Ticketmaster maintained monopoly power through anticompetitive behavior, such as using its dominance in concert promotion and control over numerous amphitheaters to pressure venues into using its ticketing platform.

Live Nation has vigorously contested this narrative, presenting witnesses from its ranks and other industry figures who testified to the quality of its services and the intense competition it faces. A jury verdict accepting this defense could validate the DOJ’s earlier settlement. However, a ruling for the states would unlock the potential for sweeping industry reforms.

The path to this point has been contentious. The DOJ’s early settlement left state plaintiffs to litigate independently, and the judge criticized both the company and federal prosecutors for not informing him of the deal’s status sooner. The settlement itself drew criticism from within the concert industry and from some of the pursuing states. The jury’s verdict could arrive within hours or days, and a finding against Live Nation would be a first step toward potentially breaking up the company, though any outcome will almost certainly trigger a lengthy appeals process.

A central theme of the trial has been distinguishing between hardball business tactics and illegal threats. Jurors heard about a disputed phone call between former Barclays Center CEO John Abbamondi and Live Nation’s Michael Rapino. Abbamondi, the government’s first witness, testified that Rapino implicitly threatened to pull concerts from the arena if it did not renew its Ticketmaster deal. A recording played in court captured Rapino using profanity and stating it might be a “tough time to deliver tickets or concerts with a new competitor in town.” This alleged pressure was so recognized that SeatGeek’s CEO later testified his company offered retaliation insurance to venues it tried to woo away from Ticketmaster.

When Rapino testified, he framed his frustration as a reaction to Abbamondi’s interpretation of an existing contract. He claimed he was merely noting the competitive reality posed by a new nearby arena and accused Abbamondi of “trying to trap me” by introducing concert promotion into the discussion. Rapino said he expected a chance to match SeatGeek’s offer and was caught unprepared when it was denied.

The states also presented damaging internal communications from Live Nation employee Ben Baker, who bragged in 2022 chats about “robbing” fans “blind” with ancillary costs like parking. Baker, now head of ticketing for Live Nation venues, called the messages “immature and regrettable.” Rapino condemned the behavior, stating he was unaware of it until the trial and planned to address the matter.

Further testimony involved Oak View Group, a venue management company with a deal that incentivized steering clients to Ticketmaster. In a related case, OVG’s previous CEO was accused by the DOJ of bid-rigging, leading to a non-prosecution agreement. On the stand, current OVG CEO Chris Granger testified that the company should have disclosed its Ticketmaster agreement to clients but maintained that Ticketmaster’s platform was superior to rivals.

An economic expert for the states, Rosa Abrantes-Metz, testified that Ticketmaster retains an extra $2.30 on average per ticket sold compared to competitors, a cost largely borne by fans. Her testimony sparked a legal dispute when Live Nation accused her of perjury regarding her methodology for calculating damages. The judge suggested the issue appeared to be a misunderstanding rather than perjury and reserved judgment.

In its defense, Live Nation called witnesses to argue that its success stems from a superior product and vigorous competition. Drake’s manager praised Live Nation for a “most fair relationship” and going “above and beyond.” Company executives testified about losing major artists like Morgan Wallen and Bruce Springsteen, stressing the intensely competitive nature of concert promotion. Rapino asserted that venue owners, not Live Nation, hold ultimate decision-making power, stating, “I don’t tell the billionaire what to do with his venue. He tells me.”

Ticketmaster’s vice president of commercial strategy, Jennifer Johnson, testified that clients often seek long-term exclusive deals, which she said carries more risk for Ticketmaster. She acknowledged on cross-examination that until at least 2024, sales reps received bonuses for renewing and extending venue contracts. Notably, the plaintiffs later moved to voluntarily dismiss their claim of unlawful exclusive dealing against Live Nation.

The defense also presented the Barclays Center’s chief entertainment officer, Laurie Jacoby, who testified that operational problems with events for The Strokes and My Chemical Romance while using SeatGeek made it difficult to attract artists, prompting the return to Ticketmaster. Other venue executives described Ticketmaster as a superior choice, and a defense economic expert argued there was no evidence of exercised monopoly power.

The trial included procedural clashes, such as a dispute where Live Nation accused the states of improperly attempting to influence a witness who had returned to Live Nation from competitor AEG. The judge partially denied a request for sanctions but ordered AEG to explain why it should not face penalties for disclosing the witness’s personnel information. These skirmishes occurred outside the jury’s presence and will not directly influence its decision.

Ultimately, the jury must determine whether Live Nation’s conduct constitutes an illegal monopoly or merely standard, if aggressive, business practice. A win for Live Nation may vindicate the DOJ’s settlement, while a verdict for the states could set the stage for a historic breakup of the live entertainment giant.