Live National questions the legitimacy of the antitrust lawsuit, to which Brown and others joined

Live Nation Entertainment Inc. He refutes an antitrust lawsuit lodged by the Department of Justice and 30 general prosecutors, including the Maryland’s case. The claim contains “absurd” claims and will not benefit much to consumers.

“The Department of Justice does not help consumers to solve their real problems,” according to a statement published on Thursday by Dan Walla, Vice President of the Corporate and Regulatory Executive and Regulatory for Live Nation. “That’s why the government has never been less popular – because it pretends to solve your problems, while instead he succumbs to a narrow set of political interests.”

However, Prosecutor General Maryland Anthony Brown (from State), who joined the lawsuit last week, said that Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the purposes of the lawsuit, control too much of the market to the detriment of consumers.

“When the world’s largest live entertainment company illegally dominates the sale of tickets, managing artists and their promotion and the choice of locations, fans will suffer the most,” said Brown in a statement. “This unlawful behavior raises prices, leaves fans at a poor level of customer service and limits people’s access to live entertainment.”

Brown said that Live Nation is the sole distributor of tickets to all large concert halls in the state, including The Fillmore in Silver Spring, Pier Six Pavilion in Baltimore and Maryland Hall in Annapolis.

The claim submitted on Thursday claims that Live Nation Entertainment Inc. The entertainment industry illegally monopolized. The 128-page lawsuit states that Live Nation, which was connected with the Ticketmaster in 2010, controls at least 80% of the original sale of tickets in the main concert halls.

In addition, the lawsuit accused of Live Nation, which manages over 400 music artists, is the owner or controls over 265 concert facilities in North America, including at least 60 of the 100 best amphitheaters in the USA. Her nearest rival owns “no more than a few best amphitheaters.”

In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Live Nation, having a monopoly on the live room market, charged clients with higher fees and limited the choice of selection for consumers.

According to the lawsuit, Live Nation brings over 22 billion dollars of revenues annually, divided into three segments: concerts, ticket sales as well as sponsorship and advertising worldwide.

Despite the consent issued by the Department of Justice after the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster in 2010 – and updated in 2020 for the next five years – a violation of various antitrust provisions is alleged in the lawsuit.

“Live music industry, like other strongly concentrated industries, is largely controlled by a well -known group of insiders who manage many combined companies in which numerous conflicts of interest occur,” it was stated in the lawsuit.

“These insiders spent decades accumulating, strengthening and exercising power, especially against anyone who is trying to disturb standard business practices and proceedings in the industry. These business practices can and often act against the interests of people with relatively small power and influence, especially working musicians and fans, “it was stated.

The US prosecutor General Merrick Garland stated in a statement after the announcement of the claim that “the time has come to break with Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”

A lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York contains a request to prohibit the Live Nation of the application of incompatible anti -competitive practices; request the sale of a ticketmaster or stop having it; and ensuring compensation to all victims injured as a result of the allegedly anti -competitive Live Nation program.

Other general prosecutors are who joined the claim, among others, general prosecutors from Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New York and Washington.

Live Nation answer

The company has published a detailed response to the claim, which contains charts and graphics showing that it has a relatively small profit margin compared to other companies; Picking up as an “insincere” claim that Oak View Group – a company never promoting concerts – was a potential rival of Live Nation; And the statement that “exclusiveness is a product of competition for places, not anti -competitive practice.”

Wall wrote that the Department of Justice allowed the merger with Ticketmaster in 2010 and appointed a person who will “carefully follow” the negotiations of Ticketmaster with facilities and ensure that the company does not use the content of concerts to conclude ticket sales contracts.

Wall pointed to one alleged violation of antitrust provisions cited in the lawsuit, which, in his opinion, concerned the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York – despite the fact that the center was not specifically named. Wall stated that the alleged violation occurred at a time when the center temporarily switched from Ticketmaster to Seatgeek.

According to Billboard, in January 2023, Barclays Center abandoned Seatgeek because of the constant technical problems related to the sale of tickets.

“Even if the version of the Barclay Department of Justice was true (which is not true), a violation of the decree in accordance with one of thousands of objects would not be tantamount to violation of antitrust provisions, which are famous for being famous for their competition, not competitors “- wrote Wall.

“Ultimately, nothing in this isolated incident (which the point is intentionally wrongly described) or in anything else in this complaint gives no grounds for the Department of Justice to disregard, withdraw or turn the contract upside down, which he concluded by confirming the fusion of Live Nation-Ticketmaster and his own statements Completed to the federal judge that complaints regarding vertical connection are unfounded, “he wrote.