US Government Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Live Nation Entertainment, Alleging Business Practices Harming Artists and Fans – JURIST

The U.S. government and dozens of states sued international entertainment company Live Nation Entertainment on Thursday in an antitrust lawsuit, accusing it of monopolizing the live entertainment space, harming artists, venues and concert-goers.

The United States government accuses Live Nation of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, an 1890 U.S. antitrust law that establishes the principles of free competition and prohibits unfair monopolies. Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that covenants in restraint of trade are illegal, while Section 2 states that anyone who attempts to monopolize or attempts to monopolize any part of a trade is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Allegations of violations of § 1 of the Act include the inclusion of “use of large amphitheaters and ancillary services” in the relevant antitrust class under the Sherman Act and promotional services sold to artists performing in such amphitheaters as a second relevant class under the Sherman Act. The lawsuit against Live Nation alleges that the entertainment company illegally requires artists performing in large venues to also purchase promotional services.

The allegations, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, include Live Nation redirecting live music to other venues if they did not sign a contract with parent company Ticketmaster, as well as taking over business partner Oak-View Group to warn venues that they would lose Live Nation contracts , if they do not sign a contract with Ticketmaster. Live Nation also allegedly delayed additional ticket sales through competing ticketing platforms and refused to advertise events taking place at venues using other ticketing platforms. Live Nation has also imposed long-term, exclusive contracts – ranging from three to 14 years – on a significant portion of available tickets.

In addition, Live Nation has also acquired amphitheaters and certain large music festivals, further restricting artists’ freedom to seek services from alternative providers, thereby violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Dozens of states, including Arkansas, Arizona and Nevada, joined the lawsuit, alleging that Live Nation also violated unfair practices rules and state law prohibitions against monopolies.

Dan Wall, vice president of corporate affairs at Live Nation, responded in a blog post, stating that Live Nation is not a monopoly because it charges for services. Wall argued that monopolies are defined as monopoly “profits” made from monopolistic “third-party pricing” to consumers – which Live Nation does not have, especially compared to other large third-party companies like Airbnb that have higher service fees.

Live Nation has not yet filed a response in court.