Key Takeaways

• Trial Conclusion: The Live Nation antitrust trial is nearing its end, with a jury set to deliberate soon.
• Monopoly Claims: The U.S. Department of Justice and states argue that Live Nation has monopolistic control over the live music industry.
• Defense Argument: Live Nation claims to be a competitive player in the market, disputing the monopoly allegations.
• Potential Outcomes: The jury’s verdict could lead to financial damages and structural changes for Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

The blockbuster Live Nation antitrust trial is finally coming to an end, and a federal jury will soon decide whether the company has used its size to wield unlawful monopoly power in the live music industry.

The New York jury heard closing arguments on Thursday (April 9), more than a month after the trial first kicked off in the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and dozens of state attorneys general. The DOJ settled with Live Nation just a few days into the trial, leaving 33 states and the District of Columbia to pursue the company’s divestiture of Ticketmaster on their own.

According to the Associated Press, the states’ lawyer, Jeffrey Kessler, told the jury in his final pitch on Thursday that Live Nation is a “monopolistic bully.” Kessler said the company controls 86% of major concert venues in addition to the artist promotion and ticketing business — a level of control he equated to “digging the moat around the monopoly castle.”

Live Nation attorney David Marriott countered in his own closing statement that while the company is indeed big, it is a “fierce competitor” that plays fair in the live entertainment industry. He said the states do not have any tangible evidence of monopolistic conduct, and that Kessler’s 86% figure is a misleading number calculated by excluding key venues, such as stadiums, from the pool of “major concert venues.”

“This is a gerrymandered market made up for purposes of this litigation,” Marriott told the jury, per the New York Times.

The lengthy trial featured testimony from venue bosses including former Barclays Center CEO John Abbamondi, who said Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino threatened to divert concerts if he switched to rival ticketer SeatGeek. Rapino denied making such threats when he later took the stand himself, saying the company has achieved its success through top-notch work, not anticompetitive conduct.

Other key witnesses included AEG Presents CEO Jay Marciano, Live Nation president of touring Omar Al-joulani and Drake’s manager, Adel Nur (aka Future the Prince). A slew of economics and other expert witnesses also testified.

The jury will begin deliberating in private on Friday morning (April 10). On a technical level, the verdict form asks whether Live Nation violated federal and state antitrust laws via two key practices: requiring artists to use its promotion services in order to play its amphitheaters, and threatening to withhold Live Nation-promoted concerts from venues that don’t sign exclusive primary ticketing contracts with Ticketmaster.

Financial damages could be on the table if the jury’s answer is “yes” to any of these questions. It would then be up to Judge Arun Subramanian to decide what kind of structural relief is required. The states want to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, but the judge could find that limits on the company’s business practices are sufficient.

Live Nation has already agreed to some such limits as part of its settlement with the DOJ, including opening up its back-end technology to rival ticketers, allowing rival promoters to book its amphitheaters and offering a non-exclusive primary ticketing option to venues. The deal also created a $280 million fund to be distributed to any states that chose to sign on, though just a handful of states took that route.