Live Nation Asks Judge to Overturn Jury's Concert Ticketing Monopoly Verdict
Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster have asked a federal judge to either overturn an April jury verdict against them or grant a new trial, the latest move in a landmark antitrust case over the concert industry. A Manhattan jury found on April 15 that Live Nation and Ticketmaster were liable on every antitrust count submitted, including monopolizing the primary ticketing market and illegally tying its concert promotion and venue businesses together. Jurors calculated that consumers were overcharged $1.72 for every primary concert ticket sold during the period examined at trial.
The case, filed by the Department of Justice and dozens of states in 2024, took an unusual turn mid-trial when the DOJ and six states with Republican attorneys general reached a separate settlement with Live Nation. The remaining 33 states and the District of Columbia rejected that deal and pressed forward, ultimately winning the jury verdict after a trial that lasted roughly six weeks before Judge Arun Subramanian in the Southern District of New York. State attorneys argued Live Nation controls 86% of primary ticketing at major concert venues and used exclusives and venue leverage to box out competitors, while the company countered that its size reflects competitive success rather than illegal conduct.
In a July 7 filing, Live Nation argued that legal errors and prejudicial evidence unfairly swayed the jury and asked the court to set aside the verdict or order a new trial. A hearing on the post-trial motions is expected this month. If Judge Subramanian denies both requests, the case moves into a remedies phase where the court will decide what penalties or structural changes, from fines to changes in how Live Nation operates, will follow.
The case for:
Live Nation argues that legal errors and prejudicial evidence unfairly influenced the jury's decision, and the company is pursuing two separate post-trial legal avenues to challenge the outcome.
The company maintains that its market position reflects competitive execution rather than coercion, arguing that artists, venues and teams choose to work with Ticketmaster on the merits.
A new trial could help resolve unsettled legal questions about market definition and tying claims that will shape future antitrust cases well beyond the concert industry.
The case against:
The jury reached its verdict after a six-week trial and four days of deliberation, finding Live Nation liable on every count submitted, a thorough process critics say doesn't warrant a redo.
State attorneys general who pursued the case after the DOJ settled argue that further delay only postpones accountability for years of ticket fees they say overcharged fans.
Consumer advocates note Live Nation already avoided a full breakup by settling with the DOJ and six states, and see the new-trial motion as squeezing additional leverage out of that partial win.
What's your take?
Should the judge grant Live Nation's request to overturn the verdict or hold a new trial? Yes 
No 
Other 
Sources:
#LiveNation #Ticketmaster #Antitrust #ConcertIndustry
Now let's hear from you.
You get one Take and 3 ratings so use them well.
Strong arguments beat loud ones.
Don't forget to rate your own Take.
Please don't feed the trolls.
