Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Consumer’s claims against Live Nation over “add-on” ticket pricing dismissed, (Sep 20, 2013)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Event promoter Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. was entitled to dismissal of a putative class action brought by a consumer, alleging federal antitrust and California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims, the federal district court in Chicago has decided (Holub v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., September 18, 2013, Kocoras, C.).

The plaintiff, a Chicago resident, purchased three tickets from Live Nation to separate events—two in Chicago and one in Phoenix. The plaintiff based his UCL claim on the fact that he was charged “add-on fees” instead of having been required to pay an “all in” price for the event tickets that he purchased. He also alleged that Live Nation was a monopolist. In his complaint, the plaintiff sought actual and treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and the putative class.

Live Nation challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the action pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the UCL. According to Live Nation, the plaintiff was not injured by the pricing practices. The court agreed.

Whether Live Nation charged a customer for tickets based on the “add-on” pricing model or an “all in” price, the customer still had to pay the same overall price, just at a different time, the court explained. Moreover, the plaintiff did not allege that he was deceived into purchasing the tickets by the use of the “add-on” model versus the “all in” model.

The plaintiff also could not pursue antitrust claims based on Live Nation’s status as a monopolist. As a result of Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster, the company now controls approximately 80 percent of the market for ticket sales to consumers.

The court could not discern, however, how a lack of competition in the ticket selling market impacted the manner in which prices were presented to consumers. A finding that Live Nation was a monopolist would not, in and of itself, redress the plaintiff’s grievance regarding the manner of presentation of Live Nation’s ticket prices, in the court’s view.

The plaintiff argued that the ticket pricing issue was merely an example of how Live Nation was a monopolist and that the event promoter engaged in other anticompetitive conduct. However, the complaint focused on the way in which Live Nation presented ticket prices, and the complaint controlled on a motion to dismiss, the court concluded.

Ironically, Live Nation faced another consumer action filed in the federal district court in Chicago for allegedly engaging in “tying” in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on the promoter’s practice of including the cost of parking in the price of concert tickets (Batson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 11 C 1226). The court dismissed that suit in March (2013-1 Trade Cases ¶78,302).

The case is No. 13 C 2008.

Attorneys: Mark T. Lavery (Lavery Law Firm) for Brendon Holub. Sean M. Berkowitz (Latham & Watkins LLP) for Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Companies: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust StateUnfairTradePractices IllinoisNews