Industry Experts Puzzled by Live Nation Settlement
Instead of proceeding with a jury trial against Live Nation-Ticketmaster as anticipated, the Justice Department announced a settlement on Monday that notably did not include the breakup that many had hoped for.
What the DOJ did secure were several concessions that left some industry insiders feeling confused and dissatisfied. There are a few positives, such as a 15 percent cap on Ticketmaster service fees at Live Nation-owned amphitheaters and a commitment to provide artists with greater transparency regarding their ticket sales. However, many remain skeptical that this deal will bring about the sweeping changes that supporters of the lawsuit were aiming for. There’s a hope that state attorneys general will continue their pursuit for broader solutions, even though there’s no certainty that a jury would rule in their favor or that Judge Arun Subramanian would approve more significant requests.
“The main question I’ve heard from partner organizations and members is: Who asked for this?” said Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association. “We’re all just scratching our heads. Why now? Why this? And where did it come from?” Parker pointed out that some provisions in the settlement either offer solutions that his members are unlikely to utilize—like using multiple ticketing systems for events—or are so minimal that they hardly make an impact.
Kevin Erickson, director of the artist advocacy group Future of Music Coalition, shared similar sentiments, highlighting a provision where Ticketmaster promises to open its backend to competitors. During the trial, witnesses, including the CEO of a rival ticketing service, described Ticketmaster’s technology as outdated, and the DOJ noted issues Ticketmaster faced during the ticket sales for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour, which the company attributed to a cyberattack. “I don’t see who’s asking for this. They just claimed that Ticketmaster’s tech is barely functional, so why is giving access to that tech a solution?”
Both Parker and Erickson noted that the company’s agreement to divest exclusive booking rights for 13 amphitheaters in the U.S. represents a small fraction of the venues it controls. The DOJ alleged that Live Nation “owns, operates, or exclusively books at least 40 of the top 50 and 60 of the top 100 amphitheaters in the United States.” Live Nation contends that it isn’t selling any venues as part of the settlement but is allowing other promoters to book events at those 13 locations. Erickson pointed out that some of these venues are in areas where outdoor events could be affected by weather, potentially limiting their operational season or creating uncomfortable conditions in the summer. “Is this a concession, or is it just a shift towards business lines that might improve the company’s profit margins?”
Leaving the outcome to a jury and judge carries more risk than accepting a known settlement. Even if the states manage to convince a jury that Live Nation is an illegal monopolist, the judge may not grant all the remedies they seek. The Google search case serves as a cautionary tale, where the government won its claims in the liability phase, but the judge approved remedies that fell short of the DOJ’s expectations. Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino stated that the settlement “marks a major step in improving the concert experience for artists and fans throughout the United States.”
“This technology would empower venues, promoters, and artists to connect with fans through their chosen marketplaces,” said Omeed Assefi, acting chief of the DOJ Antitrust Division. “Currently, ticketing fees remain high because venues are locked into long-term contracts that restrict ticket distribution. Under this agreement, Live Nation will be required to offer tickets to third-party distributors and limit contract lengths, thereby fostering competition in the ticketing market. These changes will provide meaningful relief for consumers.”
However, with the trial cut short—at least for now—the public won’t gain a clear understanding of the government’s original accusations against Live Nation. “By skipping the evidence presentation and jumping straight to remedies, it makes it especially difficult to assess whether the punishment fits the crime,” said Erickson. “I was looking forward to hearing from witnesses about the challenges they’ve faced in accessing amphitheaters and organizing tours.” Subramanian indicated that if the case resumes, the jury would hear from Jay Marciano, COO of AEG, a competitor to Live Nation-Ticketmaster in concert promotion and ticketing. There are also more venues, Live Nation executives, and artists, including Kid Rock, on the witness list who have yet to testify.
The settlement includes an anti-retaliation clause, but this was already a key aspect of the consent decree established between Live Nation and the DOJ back in 2010, and the DOJ’s suit claims this did not eliminate the practice.
Critics argue that without a structural separation of the company and changes to its incentives, meaningful change is unlikely. “Today’s settlement does little to lower costs or protect independent venues and fans. They should be broken up,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar. “It’s just going to be the same old story with how this settlement operates.”
Klobuchar plans to introduce a new bill aimed at strengthening courts’ review of antitrust settlements, which would empower states to play a larger role and ensure that courts cannot approve agreements that fail to address antitrust issues. Reviews under the Tunney Act are intended to ensure that antitrust settlements serve the public interest, although it’s rare for a judge to reject a deal outright. Under the Tunney Act review, the court will assess whether the parties are likely to return to the same issues and if the proposal creates new problems.
What about the outcome that many music fans desire: lower ticket prices? While fee caps on tickets could help, Bill Werde, director of the Bandier music industry program at Syracuse University, noted that this issue is even broader and more complex than what this case alone could resolve. “For the average music fan, they just want to know they can get tickets to the shows they want at an affordable price,” Werde said. “I don’t think this settlement, or any likely outcome from the ongoing case, will significantly impact that issue.” This is largely due to the overwhelming demand for tickets that exceeds supply, Werde explained.
Moreover, as long as Live Nation and Ticketmaster remain connected, the company could potentially offset lost revenue from fee caps by adjusting other areas. It might offer less to artists or increase base ticket prices before fees, Werde added. Similar dynamics could persist regarding the company’s influence over concert venues. “As long as Live Nation owns Ticketmaster, regardless of whether the DOJ has proven anything or not, the leverage is clear and implied,” Werde stated. “When you have leverage, you typically don’t need to flaunt it.”
