Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: Live Nation/Ticketmaster consumer cases proceed to arbitration, (Jul 7, 2026)

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

Designated arbitration provider had changed its rules to remedy deficiencies found in a previous case cited by the consumers who had resisted the arbitration.

The federal district court in New York City has granted a motion by Live Nation and Ticketmaster to compel arbitration of two putative class action lawsuits brought by individual purchasers of tickets to Live Nation events. The arbitration clauses were found to be valid and enforceable (Jacobson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03994-AS (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 2026)).

Background. Live Nation, Inc. promotes public entertainment events at various venues worldwide, many of which it owns, and also manages more than 300 entertainment artists. Ticketmaster LLC, f/k/a Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc., sells admission tickets to entertainment events. A dispute over a proposed merger between Live Nation, Inc. and Ticketmaster, contested by the Department of Justice in 2010, went forward following a consent order settlement [U.S. v. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00139-RMC (D.D.C. January 28, 2020)]. The combined entity (hereinafter, Ticketmaster) was sued in 2024 by the Justice Department and many state attorneys general for alleged anticompetitive activity subsequent to the merger.

Shortly after the government initiated its 2024 lawsuit, various putative class action lawsuits were brought by consumers who had purchased tickets that had been initially sold by Ticketmaster; these included the Leifer case [Leifer v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 1:24-cv-03994 (S.D.N.Y.)] and the Jacobson case [Jacobson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06538 (S.D.N.Y)].

Live Nation moved to compel arbitration with regard to the Leifer and Jacobson cases.

Agreement to arbitrate. After determining that California law applied, the judge found that the individual plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate the disputes. Here, the Internet purchases each entailed so-called "clickwrap" agreements whereby the purchaser must accept Ticketmaster's terms and conditions for the transaction. The terms and conditions included an arbitration clause. The online transaction entailed ticking the box one the screen to indicate acceptance before the transaction is finalized; this included an acknowledgment that the customer has read those terms and conditions. The hyperlink to the terms and conditions, as well as the website in general, were found to have sufficient visual ergonomics for the customer to make a meaningful decision to proceed with the transaction. The court thus found that all of the plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of Ticketmaster's terms and conditions, including the arbitration clause. Each of the plaintiffs did a Ticketmaster online transaction on multiple occasions, and thus should have been aware of the arbitration provisions.

Moreover, the plain language of the arbitration clause was expansively worded to cover "[a]ny dispute, claim, or controversy relating in any way to the terms, your use of the site, or products or services sold, distributed, issued, or serviced by or though us—irrespective of when that dispute, claim or controversy arose." This was found by the court to apply to the plaintiffs' transactions on a secondary market because each plaintiff previously had effectively agreed to the arbitration clause with respect to any ticket that had initially been sold by Ticketmaster.

Enforceability of arbitration agreement. The court ruled that the determination of the arbitration's enforceability reposes in the arbitrator. Ticketmaster's arbitration provision states that the arbitrator shall have "exclusive authority to the extent permitted by law to resolve all disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Agreement." This clause delegates the arbitrability decision to the arbitrator, thereby taking the determination out of the court's hands.

In the Jacobson case, the plaintiff argued that there was a conflict of interest on the part of the designated arbitrator, an alternate dispute resolution company (New Era). Ticketmaster's counsel had materially assisted New Era in its start-up, including drafting of its rules, and a significant volume of New Era's business entailed Ticketmaster cases. But the limited discovery allowed by the court had revealed that New Era's caseload had expanded well beyond Ticketmaster cases, that New Era's individual arbitrators were independent contractors and not employees, and those who had an ownership stake in New Era disclosed this fact in advance of conducting the arbitration. The court found that this did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable. Along similar lines, there was no duress proven, inasmuch as (1) the plaintiffs had previously transacted business with Ticketmaster; and (2) under California law, the wrongful act requisite for duress was a high bar that was not surmounted by the actions alleged.

The arbitration agreement thus was not shown to be unconscionable, so the court allowed the question of arbitrability to proceed to the arbitrator.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-03994-AS.

Judge: Subramanian, A.

Attorneys: Alexandra S. Bernay (Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP) for Abraham Leifer. Alicia R. Jovais (Latham & Watkins) for Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Companies: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews