Monopolizing the Ticketing Industry: The DOJ’s Renewed Fight with Ticketmaster and Live Nation

By: Marissa Pereira, Class of 2028

Introduction

Ticketmaster LLC (Ticketmaster) has a long-standing history of being the “largest live entertainment company in the world.[1] Selling tickets ranging from Sunday night football or large stadium concerts, Ticketmaster is the primary online source for obtaining tickets to events.[2] However, with this large hold over the ticket selling industry, Ticketmaster, and its subsidiary, Live Nation Entertainment Inc (Live Nation), have found themselves in legal trouble with the United States, along with thirty other states, who have filed a civil antitrust suit against them.[3]

Ticketmaster is a company that was founded in 1976 that originally sold ticketing hardware but later moved to computerized ticketing.[4] It began to absorb various competing companies throughout the 2000s, including Live Nation. On January 25, 2010, Ticketmaster and Live Nation announced their controversial agreement to merge.[5] The Department of Justice (DOJ) met this request with the caveat that Ticketmaster must “license its ticketing software, divest ticketing assets and subject itself to the anti-retaliation provisions”.[6] These provisions were intended to prevent Ticketmaster and Live Nation from taking over the ticketing industry, allowing for competition within the market. [7]

The DOJ’s Antitrust Division and seventeen state attorney generals filed an antitrust lawsuit to block this merger, but Ticketmaster and Live Nation prevailed, on certain conditions. Ticketmaster agreed to a consent decree, which would limit their business in the ticketing market.[8] This agreement had provisions such as giving buyers one of their ticketing companies and refraining from retaliating against venue owners who do business with other ticketing or promotional companies. [9]

However, these agreements proved ineffective in preventing Ticketmaster and Live Nation from becoming an overwhelming presence in the ticketing world. Today, over 400 musical artists are managed by Live Nation and over 265 convert venues in North America are run by this company.[10] Additionally, about sixty percent of U.S. prominent concert venues and around eighty percent of primary ticket sales at major concert venues are controlled by Live Nation.[11] This company’s conduct again drew scrutiny from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division for alleged intimidation, retaliation, threats, and other anticompetitive tactics. [12]

Complaint

Introducing another suit, on May 23, 2024, the DOJ and thirty-nine states (and Washington, D.C.) filed a complaint against Ticketmaster and Live Nation in the United States Southern District of New York Court, requesting a jury trial for five federal law claims, and twenty-one state law claims.[13] The federal complaints involve two federal laws: Sherman Act § 1 and Sherman Act § 2.[14]

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts in which two or more people/companies agree to limit competition in any way that affects trade between states or other countries.[15] Additionally, section 2 of the Sherman Act states that monopolizing trade is a felony.[16]

The DOJ alleges Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully dominate multiple related markets through a common course of conduct. On ticketing, the DOJ pleads § 2 monopolization, asserting Ticketmaster maintains a monopoly over ticketing services and has threatened or retaliated against venues to coerce exclusive use of Ticketmaster.[17] Complementing that theory, plaintiffs assert § 1 unlawful exclusive dealing, claiming the major ticket services market is relevant to antitrust analysis and that Ticketmaster’s contracts unjustly restrict trade and foreclose rivals.[18]

Furthermore, the DOJ claims that Live Nation abuses its control of large amphitheaters to force artists to buy Live Nation’s promotional services, which supports a § 1 claim.[19] The DOJ also pleads two § 2 theories: monopolization of the major amphitheater market achieved by asserting control across festivals, promoters, venues, and amphitheaters and monopolization of concert promotion by conditioning amphitheater access on using Live Nation promotion through threats and strict contracts.[20] On August 30, 2024, the claim was amended to maintain its central arguments, refine its organization, elaborate on remedies, and add ten states to the claim.[21]

Motion to Dismiss

The most recent development in this case was on March 14, 2025, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s motion to dismiss the amendment complaint.[22] Live Nation and Ticketmaster claimed that the Sherman Act § 1 tying claim and the state plaintiffs’ Sherman Act damages claim were not properly plead.[23] However, the court found that the claim alleged the proper elements for the tying claim and plausibly alleged antitrust injury to consumers that purchased tickets from Ticketmaster.[24]

Conclusion

Following these actions, the case is moving into discovery and pretrial motions which sets the schedule for jury selection and trial for March 2, 2026.[25] Given Ticketmaster and Live Nation’s violation of their previous agreement with the DOJ, I believe that there will be some big changes seen in the way that Ticketmaster conducts business, especially given Congress’s long-standing initiative to end Ticketmaster’s monopoly. Currently, there are many pending bills to block Ticketmaster’s unethical practices, but the most relevant bill to this lawsuit is the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act.[26] This bill was introduced to Congress in 2023, and it would mandate that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) monitors the length of agreements that venues and ticket selling services enter into for virtually all performances held at venues.[27] Under this bill, the FTC would be required to state specific durations of time which would be deemed excessive for an excusive deal between these events and venues. [28]Although this bill has not been passed, I believe the rules laid out in this proposed legislation may be used as a framework for negotiation between Ticketmaster and the DOJ if Ticketmaster chooses to settle.

[1] ¶¶ 1, United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 23, 2024).

[2] Id.

[3] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry (May 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert).

[4] Ticketmaster, Rolling Stone, https://www.rollingstone.com/t/ticketmaster (last visited Nov. 6, 2025).

[5] Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Requires Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. to Make Significant Changes to Its Merger with Live Nation Inc. (Jan. 25, 2010), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-ticketmaster-entertainment-inc-make-significant-changes-its-merger-live-nation.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] ¶¶ 5–7, United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 23, 2024).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id ¶¶ 207–23.

[14] Id ¶¶ 207–48.

[15] Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (2018).

[16] Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2018).

[17] ¶¶ 207–372, 210, United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 23, 2024).

[18] Id ¶¶ 216–23.

[19] Id ¶ 3; ¶¶ 224–32.

[20] Id ¶¶ 233–40, 241–48.

[21] Amended Complaint, United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS, ECF No. 257 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2024).

[22] United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2025).

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1362906/dl.

[26] Unlock Ticketing Markets Act, S. 1321, 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1321.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.