The US Justice Department has formally urged a federal judge to mandate the breakup of Live Nation Entertainment Inc., asserting that the company maintains an illegal and harmful stranglehold over the live events industry. This accusation, central to a lawsuit filed in 2024 by the government and approximately 30 states, highlights Live Nation's alleged monopolistic practices, particularly its strategy of freezing out concert venues that opt against using its Ticketmaster unit for ticketing services.

According to Bonny Sweeney, a Justice Department lawyer, venues that made the decision to switch from Ticketmaster to a rival ticket seller experienced significant financial repercussions. These venues reportedly lost an average of five concerts annually promoted by Live Nation, translating to a combined revenue forfeiture of about $1.5 million, or over $300,000 per event. The Barclays Center in New York was specifically cited as one of the venues that 'lost concerts as a result of switching from Ticketmaster.' Furthermore, Sweeney stated that many venues have reported that Ticketmaster's services are inferior when compared to those offered by its competitors.

Live Nation, which merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, vehemently denies operating an illegal monopoly. The company has formally requested US District Judge Arun Subramanian to either dismiss the government's lawsuit outright or to rule on the case without the necessity of a full trial, which is currently scheduled for March 2. Following arguments from both sides during a recent court hearing in Manhattan, the judge did not indicate when he would issue a ruling on Live Nation's request.

The antitrust lawsuit by the Justice Department details Live Nation's extensive market control. The company is reported to control more than 265 concert venues across North America and manages over 400 musical artists. Through its Ticketmaster subsidiary, Live Nation allegedly commands approximately 87% of the concert ticketing market. Additionally, it controls more than 65% of the concert promotion market, as articulated by Sweeney to the judge.

Andrew Gass, an attorney representing Live Nation, countered the government's claims by stating that despite years of investigation, the Justice Department only identified eight alleged instances over a 15-year period where Live Nation purportedly threatened to withhold concerts if a venue switched its ticketing services. Gass further argued that the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence of harm caused by the company's policy requiring artists to utilize Live Nation's promotion services at venues it owns. He emphasized the need for 'actual evidence these customers were made worse off.'

However, the Justice Department has also pointed to the negative impact on artists performing at Live Nation-owned amphitheaters. Government lawyer Lorraine Van Kirk testified that the company instructed its employees against increasing artist guarantees, which are the fixed amounts paid to artists even if a concert is canceled, due to their obligation to use Live Nation's venues. Moreover, Live Nation amphitheaters are reported to have higher venue and service fees than comparable venues, often compelling artists to reduce their ticket prices to avoid burdening fans with excessive costs. The case is officially designated as US v. Live Nation, 24-cv-3973, in the US District Court, Southern District of New York.