Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Live Nation argues jury verdict in concert venue monopolization litigation unsupported, (May 26, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Live Nation declared that it "can and will appeal any unfavorable rulings on these motions."

Following a jury verdict against it, Live Nation has filed post-trial motions in the federal district court in New York City. On April 15, 2026, the jury determined that Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster 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 (United States of America v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2026)).

Background. In 2020, a proposed merger between corporate impresario Live Nation, Inc. (Live Nation), which controls many entertainment venues throughout the United States and beyond and ticket seller Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. (Ticketmaster) was consummated subject to a consent agreement following a challenge by the Justice Department [U.S. v. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00139-RMC (D.D.C. January 28, 2020)].

Subsequently, in 2024, the Justice Department, joined by 40 state Attorneys General (collectively, the Government), sued the successor entities to Live Nation and Ticketmaster (henceforth, collectively Live Nation). The settlement agreement reached by federal governemnt and seven states was controversial because other states alleged that they were given insufficient time to agree to its terms. The litigation continued with respect to the non-settling states, leading to a jury verdict against Live Nation [Jury verdict, State Of New York v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2026)]. Responding to the jury verdict, Live Nation issued a press release stating that "[t]he jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter. Pending motions will determine whether the liability and damages rulings stand."

On May 21, 2026, Live Nation filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively if that motion is denied, a new trial.

Judgment as a matter of law. Live Nation filed a brief urging the court to grant it judgment as a matter of law. A previous motion to this effect had been deferred by the court pending the jury verdict; that motion is being renewed. Per Live Nation's brief, some of the claims, designated as "Amphitheater claims," pertained to monopolization of large venues. The brief asserts that the Government failed to prove that Live Nation unlawfully acquired a monopoly in the large amphitheater market, asserting, among other things that "there are no lease, operation, ownership, or exclusive booking agreements between Live Nation and any amphitheater in the trial record." Live Nation acquired control over four amphitheaters since 2015, only one of which was given adequate evaluation by the Government's expert witness. The statutes of limitations regarding Live Nation's acquisitions of control over many amphitheaters had already run before the current lawsuit was brought. The court instructed the jury that the acquisitions themselves, without more, do not constitute monopolization, but there was no evidence presented of anything beyond mere acquisition, giving the jury "no option but to presume that acquisitions themselves constitute anticompetitive effects [emphasis in original brief]."

Live Nation's brief contends that the Government failed to prove the tying claims. The only tied market alleged was promotion services to artists at "major concert venues," which was set aside by the court. Even if the court does not find this reason alone a basis to dismiss the tying claim, the proof of any harm to the performing artists was inadequate. The Government also failed to prove "that any artist was forced into purchasing Live Nation’s promotion services" unwanted by the artist. The Government's tying claim alleges a pattern and policy that had remained unchanged since its inception, which began before May 23, 2020, a date four years before the Government filed its lawsuit; the tying claim was thus time-barred, says Live Nation's brief.

Live Nation's brief also says that judgment as a matter of law is also warranted on the "Ticketing claims." The government failed to prove their alleged markets for those claims, anticompetitive effects, exclusionary conduct, and monopoly power.

The brief notes that if, as it argues, the Sherman Act monopolization claims must fall, so too must the state Sherman Act analog statute claims fall for the same reasons. Moreover, there was no state-specific harm evidence adduced. As for damages, these were based solely upon the testimony of the Government's expert, which Live Nation asserts "was riddled with errors and is insufficient."

New trial motion. Live Nation filed a brief urging the court to hold a new trial if it does not grant it judgment as a matter of law [Fed. R. Civ. P. 59]. For the same reasons as advanced in its judgment as a matter of law brief, Live Nation asserts that the jury verdict was "against the clear weight of the evidence."

This brief also implores the court that a new trial is required on account of "highly prejudicial evidentiary errors." These included messages exchanged between two Live Nation employees that entailed "passing references to ancillary, non-ticketing products and services sold to concertgoers at two Live Nation amphitheaters [emphasis in original brief]," which the court erroneously allowed into evidence. This, Live Nation asserts, was purposefully and successfully introduced by the Government to inflame the jury. The evidence relating to matters outside of the limitations period likewise was prejudicial, as was hearsay evidence regarding supposed threats of retaliation. For many of these, the court had denied Live Nation's motions to exclude.

Live Nation's brief also highlights what it deems to have been erroneous jury instructions that warrant a new trial. Here, while the jury was instructed that it could consider evidence of "constrained consumer choice," this must be augmented with "evidence of changed prices, output, or quality," which was omitted from that jury instruction.

The court's instruction to the jury that "[a] policy of tying products together … may suffice to show coercion" ran contrary to Second Circuit precedent, which further requires the Government "to show that artists had been coerced into purchasing Live Nation’s promotion services." Other jury instructions were similarly incomplete such that they were erroneous and prejudicial. These included the exclusive dealing and market definition instructions. Furthermore, the court had refused Live Nation's proposed jury instructions that would have clarified that "lawful conduct cannot be part of the calculus" of threats and retaliation per circuit precedent.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS.

Attorneys: Alexis Lazda, U.S. Department of Justice, for the U.S. Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer, Jr. (Latham & Watkins, LLP) for Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Companies: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

News: Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews NewYorkNews