Rivals of Live Nation and Ticketmaster are asking a United States federal judge to reject a proposed settlement from the Department of Justice that would allow the two companies to remain combined under new antitrust conditions.
AEG and SeatGeek have each submitted public comments criticizing the settlement, which the federal government reached a week into Live Nation’s antitrust trial this spring. AEG’s comment was docketed on Thursday (Sept. 3), and SeatGeek’s was filed on Aug. 31. State attorneys general continued with the trial, and a jury ultimately held Live Nation liable for monopolizing the live music industry through artist promotion, venue ownership and ticketing. Live Nation denies those claims and has said it will appeal.
Judge Arun Subramanian now faces a choice: approve the business changes outlined in the DOJ settlement or order the more drastic remedy of separating Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The states are advocating for a total breakup, as is AEG, a major Live Nation competitor that also promotes concerts, owns venues and operates a ticketing service.
The bottom line is simple: as long as Ticketmaster remains vertically integrated with Live Nation, venues will continue to face pressure to choose Ticketmaster because of Live Nation’s control over content. The proposed decree does not address that fundamental incentive structure. Divestiture is needed to restore competition.
While SeatGeek does not expressly push for a Ticketmaster divestiture in its public comment, the ticketing company similarly argues that the DOJ settlement is insufficient to address Live Nation’s alleged market dominance. AEG and SeatGeek have both been involved throughout the antitrust case, and executives from both companies testified against Live Nation at trial.
Settlement terms under dispute#
One key dispute in the case is whether Live Nation boxes out competition by pressuring venues to sign exclusive primary ticketing agreements with Ticketmaster. The DOJ settlement addresses this by requiring Ticketmaster to offer non-exclusive contracts and by barring Live Nation from withholding concerts in retaliation from venues that choose rival ticketers such as SeatGeek or AEG’s AXS.
AEG and SeatGeek both argue that Live Nation cannot be trusted to refrain from this type of retaliation. They say the company has promised this to the DOJ twice before, when it merged with Ticketmaster in 2010 and in a follow-up 2020 deal that imposed additional compliance obligations. According to AEG and SeatGeek, Live Nation did not meaningfully change its business practices then, and it will not now.
In purporting to offer major concert venues the freedom to switch portions of their primary ticketing business from Ticketmaster to a rival provider, the proposed final judgment ignores the reality that major concert venues already have the freedom to switch all of their business to a rival provider, but have been unwilling to do so for fear of losing Live Nation concert revenue. This is a feeble gesture masquerading as a serious solution.
AEG and SeatGeek also both take issue with the portion of the DOJ settlement that would require Ticketmaster to lend its back-end technology to other ticketers. AEG’s comment argues that rather than open up the market, this would have the “perverse” result of further entrenching Ticketmaster’s dominance by making it “the gatekeeper through which competing providers must operate.”
Promoter and Live Nation response#
Veteran tour promoter Louis Messina filed a separate response criticizing the settlement. Messina, whose company Messina Touring operates in partnership with AEG, says the settlement would not fix the high Ticketmaster fees that provide Live Nation with capital to “throw monopoly money at artists in the form of big guarantees” and box out independent promoters.
Messina also argues that while the settlement requires Live Nation to allow independent promoters into the amphitheaters it owns, addressing another key issue in the antitrust case, this provision is “full of loopholes that could easily allow Live Nation to block another promoter’s access.”
I am worried. While I am of course worried about the survival of my own business, I am more worried about the entire music industry falling into the hands of one company. I care about this business and the artists I work with. They deserve better and so do the fans. The court should reject the consent decree and order actual relief to save the industry.
Live Nation has consistently maintained that the DOJ settlement is more than sufficient to resolve the claims in the case. Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs, said in a Thursday statement: “AEG and SeatGeek are Live Nation’s competitors, and their filings advance their own commercial interests, not those of artists, venues or fans.”
Wall added: “Much of what they say misrepresents the settlement’s terms. The Department of Justice negotiated this settlement and has said it delivers meaningful relief for consumers. Nothing in these filings changes our confidence that the court will approve it.”
