Utah joins Justice Department-led suit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation

Utah recently joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Ticketmaster, continuing the state attorney general office’s antitrust work. The state was successful in leading an antitrust Google Play Store suit and now is pursing another antitrust action with the Ticketmaster suit.
Most states have joined the lawsuit at this point, which alleges Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation “serves as the gatekeeper for the delivery of nearly all live music in America today.” The amended suit with Utah added as a plaintiff was filed Aug. 19.
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Live Nation said on its website it “in no way fits the profile” of a monopolist and said rising ticket prices are due to factors like artist popularity, ticket scalping and rising production costs.
The company said it would favor reforms to help fans get tickets at the price artists have set and said they have been clear about this both to Congress and the Department of Justice.
“Instead, it has filed a case which misleads the public into thinking that ticket prices will be lower if something is done about Live Nation and Ticketmaster,” said the company. “DOJ is not helping consumers with their actual problems.”
Officials with the Justice Department said the suit was filed because of Live Nation’s alleged illegal monopoly.
“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a release. “The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”
The lawsuit said Live Nation controls around 80% or more of major concert venue’s primary ticketing and alleges the company engaged in anticompetitive conduct.
“Because Live Nation and Ticketmaster control so much of the concert-going experience, would-be rivals must compete at scale across different levels of the concert ecosystem, raising barriers to competition even further and requiring multi-level entry by existing and would-be competitors,” the lawsuit alleged.
As evidence of the impacts of Live Nation’s alleged monopoly and anticompetitive behavior, the suit pointed toward the fees concertgoers have to pay, naming them a “Ticketmaster Tax.” In addition to the fees, the filing said due to the lack of competition the company has, Ticketmaster “does not need to invest as much to improve the fan experience.”
“Live Nation’s monopoly, and the anticompetitive conduct that protects and maintains its monopoly, strikes a chord precisely because the industry at stake is one that has for generations inspired, entertained, and challenged Americans,” said the suit. “Conduct that subverts competition here not only harms the structure of the live music industry and the countless people that work in that industry, but also damages the foundation of creative expression and art that lies at the heart of our personal, social, and political lives.”
The suit alleged Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive behavior through threatening venues that work with rivals, locking venues into long-term exclusive contracts and restricting artists’ access to venues.
“The live music industry in America is broken because Live Nation-Ticketmaster has an illegal monopoly,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division in a release. “Our antitrust lawsuit seeks to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists.”
Live Nation posted an article on its website responding to the claims made in the suit.
“It ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices, from rising production costs, to artist popularity, to 24/7 online ticket scalping that reveals the public’s willingness to pay far more than primary ticket prices,” wrote Dan Wall, executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs at Live Nation.
As for service charges, Wall said the suit “ignores that Ticketmaster retains only a modest portion of those fees.”
“One of the most jaw-dropping parts of today’s complaint is the assertion that there are ‘barriers to entry’ because ‘artists naturally prefer to work with a promoter who is successful in promoting many high-demand shows at popular venues’ — namely, Live Nation,” said Wall. “That is a supreme expression of competition on the merits, winning by being better. But to this group it’s anticompetitive.”