What to know
- A U.S. jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated as a monopoly, overcharging fans and harming competition in the live events market.
- The companies could be forced to pay millions in damages — $1.72 per ticket across 22 states — along with possible additional penalties.
- The case now moves into a remedies phase, where the court could order structural changes, including breaking up parts of the business.
- Live Nation says it will challenge the verdict through motions and appeals, meaning the legal battle is far from over.
- While no equivalent government case exists in Canada, one expert says the ruling could influence Canadian lawsuits and potentially lead to more competition in ticketing fees rather than major price drops.
A U.S. jury decided Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster have operated as a monopoly and overcharged fans, and the concert giant might have to pay millions of dollars and face penalties.
The decision was reached on Wednesday after four days of deliberation, as part of an ongoing trial with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and several states.
The jury’s verdict could mean that Live Nation and Ticketmaster would have to pay USD $1.72 per ticket that they found were overcharged by the company across 22 states in the country, adding up to millions of dollars. On top of that, Live Nation could see added penalties if determined by the court, including being forced to divest parts of the company, such as its own amphitheaters.
The DOJ along with 30 U.S. states first launched a lawsuit against Live Nation in 2024, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive ticketing practices and allowed scalpers to buy up tickets. Since then, both sides have been going through the pretrial stage of the case.
Last month, the two parties had reached an agreement which stated that Live Nation would have to pay USD $280 million to states that participated in the lawsuit.
However, the attorneys general for most of the states in the case refused the deal, arguing that it didn’t do enough to address monopoly concerns, and hired antitrust expert Jeffrey Kessler to take over the case.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster have made several headlines recently, including regarding Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour tickets sales, which sparked technical issues, account hacks and several scams after a security breach in 2024.
Read More
According to media reports, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino was questioned about The Eras Tour incidents and issues faced by customers, which he blamed on the security breach.
The trial also revealed messages from Live Nation executives, referring to customers as “stupid” for paying what they considered outrageous fees. Rapino also apologized for the messages, saying they were “unacceptable.”
Kessler has also said that Live Nation controls 86 per cent of ticketing for major concert venues, including hundreds of amphitheaters.
Live Nation says the fight is not over
Speaking with reporters outside the courthouse in New York City, Kessler commemorated the jury’s decision.
“It’s a great day for antitrust law. It’s a great day for consumers. And this case is a tribute to the 34 states in the District of Columbia who carried this case forward, and it is my great honour to be working together with them,” he said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James also celebrated the win, calling it a “landmark win.”
On the other hand, Live Nation has released a statement emphasizing that “the jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter.”
The company says it will renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law, which asks the court to assume that any jury isn’t able to make a different conclusion based on the fact that the existing evidence for the opposing party is not sufficient. If the motion is accepted, the case would be taken away from the jury and decided by the judge.
The company also says the court also still needs to reveal a pending motion to disregard the damages testimony which the jury’s rule was based on.
In addition, Live Nation says it will appeal the decision if the outcome isn’t favourable to the company.
“Injunctive relief will be determined by the Court after the states make a remedy proposal, which we expect in the coming weeks. In the meantime, the Tunney Act proceedings regarding the DOJ settlement will continue. We remain confident that the ultimate outcome of the States’ case will not be materially different than what is envisioned by the DOJ settlement,” it added.
What happens now?
Stephen Selznick, a partner in the Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment, and Regulatory Groups at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP explains that although the original settlement would have ordered Live Nation to pay some states for tickets found to have been overcharged, but it didn’t include any findings that Live Nation and Ticketmaster actually engaged in monopolistic practices.
For him, the jury decision is important because it recognizes that the company was in fact conducting business in an anti-competitive manner.
“The jury found on all counts that Live Nation and Ticketmaster in the way they conducted their business were abusing their dominant position. And the net effect was it affected ticket prices to consumers, and there was a negative effect on consumers. That’s an important decision,” he said.
According to Selznick, the jury’s decision was just the first phase of the trial, which will now move to another phase in which the court will determine other behavioural remedies.
“This is what the state’s attorney generals are pressing, they want Live Nation broken up. They want the business units broken up so the unit that owns theatres will not also be able to sell tickets in the theatres, and will also not be able to do the promotion for artists,” he said.
At the same time, he believes Live Nation will in fact appeal the decision, and says that the second part of the ongoing trial could happen alongside a separate appeal trial.
What does this mean for Canada?
While Canada currently doesn’t have similar cases against Live Nation or Ticketmasters initiated by government agencies like Competition Bureau Canada, Selznick explains that there have been class actions against the companies which argue similar monopolistic behaviour by the company.
Even though facts decided by the U.S. court are not admissible in Canadian courts, those seeking actions in Canada could use the case to argue that Live Nation carries similar processes in the country, engaging in similar monopolistic practices, which could strengthen Canadian cases, according to Selznick.
“We watch the same artists as they do in the U.S. We go to the same concerts people in the U.S. do. It’s very rare that if Taylor Swift is doing a concert, she wouldn’t have several Canadian dates in her tour, or Bruce Springsteen, or other kinds of people. So, a lot of the business practices that Live Nation engages in are probably consistent with what it does in Canada as well,” he explained.
In addition, the lawyer says that any remedies determined in the U.S. court could also affect Live Nation’s operations in Canada, which will reflect into customers.
“It’s rare that Live Nation or Ticketmaster will have a different ticket business in Canada than it does in North America. So, I’m sure if they sell off Ticketmaster in the U.S., it’ll include the state company as well,” he said.
Selznick said he doesn’t expect ticket prices to dramatically drop for customers if that happens, however, it might help make the service charge component of sales more competitive.
“If you only have one company like Ticketmaster selling tickets for the ACC, let’s say, and they say we have a 15 or 20 per cent service charge. There’s nothing you can do about it, because they’re the only [company] you can buy tickets from,” he said.
“If the NHL says, for example, ‘Well, Ticketmaster, if you want to sell tickets to the Toronto Maple Leafs or whoever’s performing in the ACC you have to bid to be the ticket agent.’…But the agency will say, ‘Well, if they have a 20 per cent service fee, we’ll do 12 per cent, and that’s that’ll benefit consumers, because the consumer is one who pays that fee.”
