Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—C.D. Cal.: Ticketmaster and Live Nation agree to class certification subject to individual adjudications about arbitration, (Dec 15, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Ticketmaster and Live Nation promoted and agreed to a modification of the proposed class definition with the understanding that the court had at least tentatively overruled their objections to class certification.

In an antitrust class action against Ticketmaster, L.L.C. and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., the federal district court in Los Angeles granted class certification in a minute order. In a separate order, the court also helped the plaintiff online ticket buyers and the Ticketmaster parties resolve an impasse about ticket buyers who might be subject to enforceable arbitration. The parties stipulated and agreed to an order amending the class definition to exclude individual ticket buyers in the event the court might later determine them subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement (Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-KES (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2025)).

Background. In October 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal district court order that denied a motion of Ticketmaster and Live Nation (collectively, the Ticketmaster defendants) to compel arbitration in a putative antitrust class action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 23-55770 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024)). The Heckman complaint targeted the merged companies’ online ticket sales practices. It argued their 2010 merger was an anticompetitive combination. Alleged anticompetitive practices, beyond the alleged tying of Ticketmaster ticket services to Live Nation concert promotion, included compelling venue operators to submit to long-term exclusive ticketing arrangements.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court decision holding that Ticketmaster’s arbitration clause was unconscionable under California law. In addition, the Ninth Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to sever the offending provision of Ticketmaster’s Terms from the rest of the agreement. Moreover, the court found the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not preempt the application of California’s unconscionability law, nor did it preempt California’s Discover Bank rule as applied to mass arbitration.

In October 2025 the Supreme Court declined the Ticketmaster defendants’ petition for certiorari. The petition posed two questions:

1. Whether the FAA protects all arbitration agreements or just a subset of traditional, bilateral arbitration agreements that FAA drafters specifically envisioned, and as the Ninth Circuit had stated; and

2. Whether the FAA preempts California’s severability doctrine because it specifically targets and disproportionately invalidates arbitration agreements.

In April 2025, the district court granted in part and denied in part a Live Nation and Ticketmaster motion to dismiss.

Class certified. In a Dec. 12, 2025 minute order, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and set a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) scheduling conference.

Continuing arbitration debate. The plaintiffs stated their belief that, if any proposed class members were still subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement, there could be a class carve-out. Accordingly, there would be no need to create a subclass. The parties then exchanged proposals and agreed to amendments to the proposed class definition.

The Ticketmaster defendants reserved all rights, including appeal of any class certification, requesting decertification, or compelling arbitration of claims due to an enforceable arbitration agreement with Ticketmaster L.L.C. or Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. The Ticketmaster defendants agreed to the modification of the proposed class definition with the understanding that the court: (1) overruled their objections to class certification; and (2) ordered the parties to confer about language to exclude claims subject to binding arbitration in the event the court will rule as described in the Tentative Ruling. The Tentative Ruling held that whether individual purchasers are subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement remains to be litigated. However, the plaintiffs agreed with the Tentative Ruling that no putative class members remain subject to any applicable arbitration agreement.

Definition amended. The parties agreed to an amendment of the class definition. The proposed class definition originally specified all purchasers in the U.S. who directly purchased a primary ticket and paid associated fees for primary ticketing services for a U.S. major venue concert from Ticketmaster or affiliate of Live Nation at any point since 2010. In contrast, the amended definition expanded on the exclusions of defendants’ officers and so forth to additionally exclude any purchaser judicially determined, in this case, to be subject to enforceable arbitration governing the instant claims.

The Case is No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-KES.

Judge: Wu, G.

Attorneys: Adam B. Wolfson (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP) for Skot Heckman. Timothy L. O'Mara (Latham and Watkins LLP) for Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Companies: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews