Live Nation antitrust trial nears end

States and Live Nation Face Off in Closing Arguments of Antitrust Trial

A high-stakes antitrust battle reached its crescendo in a Manhattan federal courtroom Thursday as attorneys presented closing arguments in the lawsuit brought by 34 states against entertainment giant Live Nation and its ticketing subsidiary, Ticketmaster.

Jeffrey Kessler, representing the coalition of states, painted Live Nation as a “monopolistic bully” that has systematically consolidated its grip on the live entertainment industry. He urged jurors to hold the company accountable for what the states allege are violations of federal antitrust laws.

“They’ve kept digging the moat around the monopoly castle in order to protect their market position,” Kessler told the jury, pointing to data suggesting Live Nation controls approximately 86% of the concert market and 73% of the overall entertainment ticketing market when sporting events are included.

The trial comes at a time of intense public scrutiny over ticket prices and availability for major concerts. The case gained significant attention after the federal government, which initially led the litigation filed in 2024, reached a settlement with Live Nation several weeks ago. That agreement secured concessions from the entertainment company, particularly regarding ticket sales at dozens of Live Nation-owned amphitheaters.

The 34 states, however, opted to continue their legal challenge after mostly unsuccessful negotiations with the company following the federal settlement. Their persistence underscores the growing concern among state regulators about concentration in the entertainment industry and its impact on consumer costs.

Live Nation’s defense attorney, David Marriott, rejected the monopoly characterization, arguing that the entertainment landscape is more competitive than ever. “We are big. That is not against the laws in the United States. Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Marriott asserted, framing the company’s dominant market position as the natural result of decades of innovation and superior products.

Marriott emphasized that Live Nation’s primary mission is supporting venues and artists, telling jurors: “Our job is to help venues and artists make money. We don’t make excuses for that.” He maintained that the states had failed to prove Live Nation acted as a monopolist, stating bluntly, “They can’t, and they didn’t.”

The defense also addressed one of the more controversial moments from the trial – testimony from a Live Nation employee who had written messages between late 2021 and early 2023 mocking customers as “so stupid” and boasting that the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” Marriott characterized these as isolated comments about lawn chairs and parking prices, not reflective of company policy.

“People say, sometimes, stupid stuff,” Marriott told the jury. “We don’t condone that. But we also don’t just ax somebody because they made a mistake years in the past.”

Judge Arun Subramanian provided legal instructions to the jury following the closing arguments. Deliberations are expected to begin Friday, with jurors needing only to find by a preponderance of evidence – more than 50% certainty – that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally wielded monopoly power.

The case represents one of the most significant antitrust challenges in the entertainment industry in recent years. A verdict against Live Nation could potentially reshape how concert tickets are sold and priced across the United States. Industry analysts note that regardless of the outcome, increased regulatory attention on the live entertainment sector could influence future business practices across the industry.

The trial has drawn considerable attention from consumer advocates, artists, and venue operators, many of whom have expressed concerns about Live Nation’s expanding influence over multiple aspects of the concert business – from venue management and promotion to ticketing and artist representation.

As the jury begins deliberations, the outcome may signal whether the recent wave of antitrust enforcement actions will successfully challenge market concentration in industries directly affecting consumer experiences and costs.