Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: 21 Plaintiff States request discovery into DOJ settlement with Live Nation, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

The Requesting States believe the Proposed Final Judgment secured by the DOJ is “insufficient to meaningfully increase competition.”

21 Plaintiff States that had joined the Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action against Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster and later rejected the proposed settlement (the Settlement) that the DOJ and Live Nation presented to the court after the empaneling of a jury, have asked the presiding judge Arun Subramanian to allow them to conduct discovery into that settlement, including the terms of the Proposed Final Judgment filed by the DOJ on June 12, 2026. The 21 Plaintiff States (the Requesting States) wrote that they have “significant concerns that the Settlement is not in the public interest,” writing that “the proposed terms appear to be insufficient to meaningfully increase competition in the relevant markets and could also increase barriers to entry and reduce competition.” After receiving the request from the Plaintiff States, the court entered an order requiring any opposition to the request to be filed by July 24, 2026 (U.S. V. Live Nation Entertainment Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2026)).

.Background. In 2024, then Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and an initial coalition of 29 state attorneys general, later expanded by 10 more states and the District of Columbia, brought the broad antitrust suit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster in light of growing complaints from consumers over ticket prices. The complaint detailed various forms of alleged anticompetitive conduct, including long-term exclusive agreements with venues—some lasting more than a decade—in order to block switching to rival ticketers or the use of multiple ticketers, as well as acquisitions of rival venues and promoters in order to protect Live Nation’s “moat” around the live concert ecosystem. In addition, Live Nation allegedly tied artists’ use of its venues to their purchase of the company’s promotional services. According to Garland, Live Nation “let[s] its venues sit empty, rather than opening them to artists who do not use Live Nation promotion services – even during peak concert season.” These allegedly illegal business practices produce more than $18 billion in annual revenue.

After a jury had been empaneled in the trial and in the wake of confirmed reports that the U.S. Department of Justice, the United States and seven co-plaintiff states agreed to a proposed settlement of their claims, a Motion for Mistrial and Stay of Current Proceedings was filed by the majority (26) of the state co-plaintiffs on March 9. Rejecting the settlement made by the DOJ and the settling states, the non-settling states proceeded with trial and on April 15, 2026, the jury determined that Live Nation monopolized the market for live entertainment tickets and ticketing services resulting in harm to concert venues, consumers, and competitors. On May 21, 2026, Live Nation filed separate motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.

Meanwhile, on June 12, the DOJ and six settling states filed a Proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation and Order, and an explanation of procedures, required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the Tunney Act).

The Proposed Final Judgment would require Live Nation to make monetary payments for monetary relief and/or civil penalties to the settling states, ranging from $677,920.00 to $4,967,661.87. There is no mention in the Proposed Final Judgment of the establishment of a $280 million settlement fund, that was described in a Term Sheet setting forth the material terms of the agreement in principle between the DOJ and Live Nation and filed with the court on March 9, 2026. The Proposed Final Judgement contains several provisions imposing ticketing distribution requirements upon Live Nation and other provisions regarding venues and promotions.

Request for discovery. In their request, the Requesting States argue that targeted discovery is necessary to fully consider certain aspects of the Settlement that are not fully explained in the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) or the Competitive Impact Statement filed by the DOJ. They also assert that the Requesting States (along with the other Plaintiff States) will participate in the remedies phase of the litigation following the jury verdict, but participation in the Tunney Act proceedings remains important.

The Requesting States would serve targeted requests for documents, information, and testimony regarding the Settlement, including but not limited to:

1. The “open distribution and ticket authentication system” described in section IV of the Proposed Final Judgment. Along with the basic design and functionality of this system, the Requesting States would seek information on the various conditions on open distribution included in the settlement;

2. Support, modeling, or analysis of the Settlement’s efficacy in addressing the allegations in the Amended Complaint;

3. The exclusive venue booking arrangements chosen for “Divestiture,” including the selection of the 13 venues at issue;

4. The decision to reappoint the monitor responsible for the prior consent orders in the DOJ’s earlier action against Live Nation.

Some of the Requesting States also have concerns about the process that produced the Settlement, in particular the lack of transparency about the settlement negotiations that took place prior to March 2, 2026. The States were not notified of the United States–Live Nation negotiations until January 29, 2026, a year after they began.

The Requesting States wrote that public reporting and Live Nation’s court filings suggests that the United States’s acceptance of the Settlement may have been influenced by individuals outside of the DOJ and concerns other than restoring or increasing competition. “To the extent other factors did influence the settlement, this, at a minimum, should impact the extent to which the United States is entitled to any deference as part of the Court’s public interest analysis.”

“Overall, the Requesting States intend to limit this discovery to topics before the Court in connection with the Tunney Act determination. But as noted above, to promote efficiency, the Requesting States renew their request that any discovery obtained be usable in the upcoming remedies trial related to the States’ ongoing litigation against Live Nation.”

The Requesting States also noted that they conferred by video conference with Live Nation on July 9 and the Defendants indicated they would oppose discovery of any kind regarding the process that led to the Settlement or alternatives considered, in addition to discovery of documents relevant to the terms of the Proposed Final Judgment.

As the court ordered, any opposition to the request must be filed by July 24.

News: Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews NewYorkNews GCNNews