Connect with us

Lifestyle

‘It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’: Justice Department sues concert ticket behemoth

Published

on

‘It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’: Justice Department sues concert ticket behemoth

Penny Harrison and her son Parker Harrison rally against the live entertainment ticket industry outside the U.S. Capitol last year.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Drew Angerer/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

The Department of Justice and 30 state and district attorneys general across the country filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against Live Nation Entertainment and its wholly owned subsidiary Ticketmaster. The suit alleges that Live Nation has created a monopoly on live event ticket prices across the United States. The civil antitrust suit was filed in the Southern District of New York.

This fight has been long in coming: Music fans and other consumers, performers, independent venues and even members of Congress have argued that Ticketmaster, which merged with Live Nation in 2010, had artificially pushed ticket prices sky-high. Live Nation has long been a dominant player in the live event marketplace, with substantial holdings in venues, concert promotions, music festivals, ticketing, sponsorship, advertising and artist management – holding so much power across so many aspects of the business, the Justice Department alleges, that it is effectively able to limit its competition.

If successful, this suit could reshape the live event landscape – and the prices fans pay to see their favorite performers – across the country.

Advertisement

The state and district attorneys general joining the suit include several states that are home to major live event venues, including those of New York, California, Colorado, Florida and Texas.

In a lengthy statement provided to NPR on Thursday, Live Nation wrote in part: “The DOJ’s lawsuit won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows. 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 got to venues, and that competition has steadily eroded Ticketmaster’s market share and profit margin.”

Within the suit, the Department of Justice and the states allege that Live Nation and Ticketmaster engaged in several forms of anticompetitive conduct, including retaliating against other promotion companies and venues that worked with its rivals; locking out competitors with long-term, exclusive ticketing contracts; restricting musicians’ access to live event venues; and strategically acquiring smaller, independent companies that Live Nation allegedly perceived as threats to its dominance.

Earlier this month, in a bid to increase transparency for consumers, the House of Representatives passed the TICKET Act, which would force Live Nation and other ticket sellers to list all the costs and fees within a live event ticket price. The bill, which was introduced in the Senate by Ted Cruz of Texas, has been supported by hundreds of prominent musicians, including Billie Eilish, Dave Matthews and Nile Rodgers, who wrote in a joint statement: “We are joining together to say that the current system is broken: predatory resellers and secondary platforms engage in deceptive ticketing practices to inflate ticket prices and deprive fans of the chance to see their favorite artists at a fair price.”

According to Thursday’s filing, Live Nation Entertainment currently owns or controls over 250 concert venues across North America, and controls around 60 percent of concert promotions at major concert venues across the U.S. The company also directly manages more than 400 musical acts.

Advertisement

In the suit, the Department of Justice and the states asserted: “With this vast scope of power comes influence. Live Nation and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ticketmaster, have used that power and influence to insert themselves at the center and the edges of virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem.”

“It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland in a statement.

In the past, and again in its statement to NPR on Thursday, Live Nation argued that musicians — not its own company — are the ones to ultimately set their own ticket prices. Live Nation executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall said that the suit “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices, from increasing production costs to artist popularity, to 24/7 online ticket scalping that reveals the public’s willingness to pay far more than [what] primary tickets cost.”

“It is not surprising that Live Nation has pointed its finger at artists,” a senior Justice official said on background on Thursday morning. “In an industry in which artists have historically been squeezed for compensation for their creative work, it’s important that artists are properly compensated.”

“To us, that’s a little bit of a red herring,” the official continued, referring to Live Nation’s previous argument. “How is the system set up? How is Live Nation’s control at all levels of the system allowing for a process that’s distorted in part by Live Nation’s power?”

Advertisement

The DOJ is pressing for “structural relief” – that is, it is asking the federal court to break up the Live Nation-Ticketmaster combined company, which the DOJ itself had approved in the 2010 merger. Justice Department officials are now arguing that since the merger, Live Nation has created a stranglehold on the live event industry.

Thursday’s case is the latest lawsuit by the Biden administration against major corporations that it has accused of abusing monopoly power. The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have sued Apple, Google and Amazon. They’ve successfully stopped the mergers of publishers Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster and of JetBlue Airways with Spirit Airlines. They’ve also unraveled a partnership between JetBlue and American Airlines.

Last year, however, federal officials lost their bids to block the merger of Microsoft and videogame giant Activision Blizzard; of Facebook parent Meta with virtual-reality company Within Unlimited; and of insurer UnitedHealth Group with tech firm Change Healthcare.

“While we do not comment on specific enforcement matters, President Biden strongly supports fair and robust enforcement of the antitrust laws,” said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a statement Thursday. “The President launched the Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing because no American should pay higher prices or lose choices because companies break the law and engage in anti-competitive practices. His Administration has taken action to fight corporate greed by banning hidden junk fees—including event tickets—that unfairly increase prices for hardworking families trying to make ends meet. As the President has said, the American people are tired of being played for suckers.”

The announcement of the federal antitrust suit against Live Nation is just a first step in what will almost certainly be a long court process, so music fans likely won’t encounter lower ticket prices any time soon.

Advertisement

With additional reporting by Alina Selyukh.

Lifestyle

How does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light

Published

on

How does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light

The Kennedy Center, the facade of which remains covered with a tarp, is seen in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2026. A US federal judge asked on June 24 for an explanation for why a tarpaulin continues to cover the facade of the Kennedy Center where President Donald Trump’s name was recently removed. District Judge Christopher Cooper gave the board of trustees of the performing arts venue until the end of July to explain “the purpose for and status of the tarp and scaffolding that Defendants have erected on the front portico of the Center.”

ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

More than two weeks ago, President Trump’s name was removed from the Kennedy Center facade though it is still covered by a tarp and the legal battle continues.

On Monday, a U.S. Department of Justice filing on behalf of the Kennedy Center included some surprises. The document was submitted in response to issues raised by lawyers for ex-officio board member Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio who is suing to remove President Trump’s name from the center and stop its closure for renovations.

Among the revelations, the Kennedy Center admitted that, during a board meeting on December 18, 2025, Beatty had been “muted and prevented from speaking.” It was at that meeting that the board voted to add President Trump’s name to the center. The filing later acknowledges the congresswoman was “prevented from voicing her opposition.”

Advertisement

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a living memorial to its namesake. The guidelines for how the theatre complex spends federal dollars are very specific. Among other rules, it states that “no additional memorials or plaques shall be designated or installed.” Beatty argues adding Trump’s name runs afoul of those rules and that any change requires approval from Congress.

According to one of Beatty’s filings, “There was no advance notice in the agenda that the Board would be considering a name change,” a statement the Kennedy Center now does not deny. The center admits that, prior to voting, there was “no discussion about potential risks or downsides of the vote to adopt a secondary name for the Center.” Nor was there a board discussion “about any potential conflict of interest that might result from the vote.”

The center’s lawyers previously contended that if Trump’s name were to be removed, it would “lose money from donors who support” him and “impede the Center’s fundraising efforts.”

Closing for renovations

Earlier this year, Trump announced on social media that the Kennedy Center would close for two years for renovations. He wrote that he made the decision after “a one year review” with “Contractors, Musical Experts, Art Institutions, and other Advisors and Consultants.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

ICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands

Published

on

ICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands
Executive president, Louise Xu, explains in our latest report ‘Face to Face With Luxury Clients’ how the Shanghai-based quiet luxury label is tapping rising interest in Chinese brands, the differences between Chinese and Western consumers and the logic behind a novel retail concept that includes a garden, art gallery and restaurant.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries

Published

on

‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries

Paul Tremblay has made a career of pushing the horror genre – and the novel format – in strange and exciting new directions.

In his latest, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep, the author offers an amalgamation of genre elements that can be best described as psychological-dystopian-science-fiction horror. It’s a mouthful, but the narrative does all of that and more in a way that defies categorization.

Julia Flang is a former semiprofessional gamer working two mediocre jobs she dislikes and living in a modest ranch house in a San Fernando Valley suburb with her retired uncle, whom she calls Uncle Fun. Julia likes movies and gaming but there’s little else going on in her life, so when her estranged mother, the CFO of a large tech company, contacts her with a possible job offer – a “once-in-a-lifetime thing” that pays handsomely just for doing the interview – she hesitantly agrees.

The job is relatively simple and perfect for someone with gaming skills: using a controller built into a phone to get a man, who is stuck in a vegetative state, from California to the East Coast. It will require her to learn how to control his body – walking, moving, sitting, standing, using his arms – so she can maneuver him out of the facility where he is located and into cars and planes and through crowded airports. A fan of movies, Julia decides to call the man Bernie – after the movie Weekend at Bernie’s. When the ethics of the job start to bother her, Julia realizes it’s too late and she must go through with it. However, she’s soon contacted by people interested in sabotaging the whole thing, people who, like her, don’t align with the shady interests of conglomerates and those set to make “gobs of money” from this new, somewhat inhuman technology.

Advertisement

As with every Tremblay novel, any synopsis barely scratches the surface. The novel’s chapters alternate between Julia and you (yes, you). Julia’s chapters are “normal” in the sense that they obey a chronological order and have action, basic descriptions of movement and places, and dialogue. The chapters in second person are like fever dreams from a shadow world; the desperate experiences of a man trapped inside his own body with no control of it, no clue what’s happening to him, and only a few fragmented memories of his life. Also, Tremblay uses a similarly fragmented style of storytelling (including words and sentences trapped in boxes and/or “moving” on the page) to keep things interesting but also confusing and creepy.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending