Connect with us

Business

Would breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster actually lower concert ticket prices?

Published

on

Would breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster actually lower concert ticket prices?

The U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster has been a long time coming, following years of complaints from concertgoers who say they’ve been squeezed by exorbitant prices and hidden fees when trying to buy passes to see Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and other music megastars.

Ever since the government cleared the merger of concert promoter Live Nation and ticketseller Ticketmaster in 2010, there have been demands from consumer advocates to cleave them. The Justice Department argues that the combination is a monopoly that has resulted in harm for music fans and has clamped down competition in the multibillion-dollar live music market.

Live Nation says the arguments are off-base and will probably fail in court. Either way, it will take a long time for the case to wind through the legal system.

Why is the government suing Live Nation?

The Justice Department has raised concerns that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have retaliated against competitors and new entrants and locked out competition with exclusionary contracts.

“The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services,” said Atty. Gen. Merrick B. Garland. “It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”

Advertisement

Beverly Hills-based Live Nation, the world’s largest concert company, has long been a target for government scrutiny.

When the U.S. approved the 2010 merger, it did so after the companies agreed to a settlement meant to ensure fair competition in the ticketing marketplace and prohibit Live Nation from retaliating against venue owners that decided to defect to competitors. The consent decree was extended and amended in 2019.

But this time, the government is going hard at the company. In its Thursday lawsuit, the U.S. accused Live Nation of various anticompetitive practices and said the company uses its market dominance to impose fees on consumers and pressure artists to use its services.

The suit comes amid a wave of antitrust action from the Biden administration, which has sought to curb the power of conglomerates and Big Tech. The U.S. government has filed other cases against tech giants including Apple, Amazon and Google, taking them to task for their alleged impact on competition.

Live Nation said that the lawsuit will not solve issues related to ticket prices, service fees or access to in-demand shows.

Advertisement

“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment, such as the fact that the bulk of service fees go to venues, and that competition has steadily eroded Ticketmaster’s market share and profit margin,” Live Nation said in a statement.

Would breaking up Live Nation lower prices?

Several industry observers who spoke to The Times expressed doubt that the lawsuit would significantly reduce prices for consumers.

Brandon Ross, an analyst at research firm LightShed Partners, said that artists decide how much they want to charge for a tour and then the promoter buys the tour from them. Due to Live Nation’s large scale, it is able to take a lower profit margin, with most of the money going back to the artist, Ross added.

“There is an efficiency in having a large player in the industry,” Ross said. “If that goes away, then that’s going to come out of either the artist’s take, or the artists are going to charge consumers even more.”

Artists like Swift and Bruce Springsteen are able to charge big sums for tickets because the concerts are one-time events, and some people are willing to pay. Because of supply and demand, tickets resold on the secondary market can be much higher than face value.

Advertisement

But James Sammataro, co-chair of Pryor Cashman’s music group, said he believes the lawsuit could address issues such as excess ticketing fees.

“What’s really harming the consumer is all these excess fees and the restrictions on getting the tickets,” Sammataro said. “For most artists, these ‘increased prices’ aren’t really benefiting the artists. In many cases, it’s alienating their core ticket buyers and their core audience.”

There is a larger issue in the music industry of concert tickets being bought at face value by scalpers and resold on secondary markets for astronomical prices.

It’s leading to two classes of music fans: those who can afford to pony up and those who can’t.

Meanwhile, many promoters left the industry after getting clobbered by the pandemic, which shut down or restricted many live events. Some smaller music artists have also been hurt by the lack of competition among promoters and are not given opportunities to play at larger venues, Sammataro said.

Advertisement

“The overall effect is that it leads to a very tilted playing field where it’s difficult for promoters to compete,” Sammataro said. “And when you have a lack of competition, essentially like the basis of predatory pricing, ultimately there’s going to be long term gouging.”

Could the company actually be broken up?

Anything is possible, but there is one thing everyone agrees on: This legal battle will be a long fight.

“Antitrust litigation can be long and protracted,” said Eric Enson, an antitrust partner at Crowell & Moring. “I expect that this will be a matter of years and not months.”

Music industry expert Bill Werde, who runs the music business program at Syracuse University, cautioned that splitting up such a large enterprise wouldn’t be easy, and it’s unclear what the businesses would look like after being disentangled from one another more than a decade after merging.

“They make their margin in ticketing and sponsorships, so if you break up this company, … I don’t know how Live Nation the concert promotion business necessarily lives and thrives independent of this high-margin ticketing business,” said Werde, who also publishes a weekly newsletter.

Advertisement

But even if it could lose, there are reasons the government might be motivated to go after the company in an election year. As Werde and other experts were quick to point out, there’s nothing that unites people like hating Ticketmaster.

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending