Democrats outline plans to challenge the Ticketmaster settlement if they return to power.
A group of Democrats convened an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill Monday to criticize the Department of Justice’s settlement with Live Nation-Ticketmaster, labeling it as “trivial” and “pathetic.” This gathering hinted at their potential strategy to challenge antitrust agreements made during the Trump administration if they regain congressional control in November.
The DOJ’s settlement with Live Nation, which emerged just a week into the trial and included a promise of up to $280 million, faced significant backlash. However, Democrats currently lack the power to set committee agendas in either chamber, which made this so-called shadow hearing distinct from typical official proceedings. Instead of occupying the elevated seats behind the dais, lawmakers sat at tables at eye level with witnesses, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who continues to pursue action against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, former Trump administration antitrust official Roger Alford, and various entertainment industry representatives, including a member of the band The Hold Steady. Some artists declined to participate due to concerns about their careers, as noted by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who co-hosted the event with Senate Homeland Security permanent subcommittee on investigations Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
While the statements made during the forum won’t be officially recorded in Congress, it provided a platform for Democrats to voice their concerns, particularly regarding the influence of corporate interests on the DOJ’s deal. “This isn’t like some kind of pickup game,” Raskin told reporters. “The corruption permeates the administration so much that we have to start building the record because it’s such an overwhelming task. We will be using the products of all of these shadow hearings to figure out where to go.” The significance of the forum was underscored by opening remarks from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Lawmakers highlighted the states’ decisive victory in the jury verdict as evidence that the DOJ’s settlement was inadequate, claiming it stemmed from corruption. Jurors affirmed the states’ claims on every question in the 11-page verdict form. The DOJ maintains that the settlement is beneficial for consumers, but it still requires a Tunney Act review to ensure it serves the public interest.
Judges are generally reluctant to reject settlements, prompting Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) to propose legislation aimed at strengthening the review standard. However, Alford, who was dismissed from the DOJ and later criticized lobbyist influence in antitrust matters, suggested this might be an unusual case where a judge could reject the DOJ’s agreement, especially since the same judge is now responsible for determining appropriate remedies for Live Nation’s monopoly, which could include a breakup.
Bonta indicated that the states’ request for a breakup, expected to be formally submitted this week, might extend beyond merely separating Live Nation and Ticketmaster. They are also contemplating asking for partial divestitures of certain aspects of Live Nation’s venue or artist management operations. “Divestiture, it’s the nuclear option. We believe it’s warranted, but we want to be thoughtful about how we ask this judge for an appropriate remedy,” he told reporters.
In response, Live Nation’s executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs, Dan Wall, stated, “Opinions shared yesterday misrepresent how the live events industry operates. Secondary ticketing and high-demand onsales are industry-wide challenges that exist across every promoter, venue, and ticketing platform. That’s precisely why Live Nation and Ticketmaster have long supported industry-wide resale reform, including price caps and stronger consumer protections, while continuing to invest in tools that help artists manage demand and protect fans.”
Live Nation has vowed to appeal the jury verdict, and it’s possible that the judge may not grant the states the full range of remedies they seek. Nevertheless, Monday’s forum demonstrated that Democrats are likely to remain focused on the origins of the deal, regardless of the outcome.
