On April 15, 2026, a jury in the Southern District of New York returned a verdict for the plaintiff states on all federal and state law claims against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (“Live Nation”) and its wholly owned subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC (“Ticketmaster”), finding that the companies unlawfully monopolized primary ticketing services and amphitheaters and tied their amphitheaters to concert promotion services. The verdict came after the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled with Live Nation mid‑trial in March 2026 without requiring a divestiture of Ticketmaster, prompting 33 states and the District of Columbia to continue the litigation on their own.
Complaint; Surviving Claims
In May 2024, the DOJ, together with 39 state attorneys general (“AGs”) and the District of Columbia, sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster, alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, tying and exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and similar claims under various state antitrust laws.
The complaint alleged that Live Nation had monopoly power in the markets for the following:
- Concert Promotion. Live Nation managed more than 400 musical artists and controlled approximately 60% of concert promotions at major U.S. venues.
- Large Amphitheaters. Live Nation owned or controlled 60 of the 100 top amphitheaters.
- Ticketing Services. Live Nation, through Ticketmaster, controlled 80% or more of major concert venues’ primary ticketing.
The plaintiffs sought an order requiring Live Nation’s divestiture of Ticketmaster and certain other behavioral restrictions. The plaintiffs also sought a jury trial.
In ruling on Live Nation’s motion for summary judgment in February 2026, Judge Arun Subramanian allowed the following claims to proceed to trial:
- monopolization in the markets for primary ticketing services and primary concert ticketing services to major concert venues;
- monopolization in the market for use of large amphitheaters by artists;
- tying the use of large amphitheaters to concert promotion services; and
- the respective surviving state-law claims.
Judge Subramanian also allowed a Section 1 exclusive dealing claim to proceed, but the plaintiffs dropped that claim during trial.
Alleged Live Nation Exclusionary Conduct
The plaintiffs alleged that the following Live Nation business practices constituted exclusionary conduct in the primary ticketing markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act:
- threatening concert venues that Live Nation will divert live music shows if they do not sign with Ticketmaster, including by co-opting business partner, Oak View Group, into making similar threats;
- retaliating against concert venues that contract with Ticketmaster’s competitors by, for example, diverting concerts on Live Nation-promoted tours to other venues and refusing to promote shows that use a competing ticketer; and
- foreclosing ticketing competitors through long-term exclusive contracts and by purchasing rival promoters and venues.
The plaintiffs alleged that the following Live Nation business practices constituted exclusionary conduct in the large amphitheater market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act:
- making exclusive booking arrangements with non-controlled venues;
- acquiring control over several amphitheaters;
- acquiring competing promotion companies that owned or had exclusive booking contracts with amphitheaters; and
- acquiring large festivals.
With regards to the tying claim, the plaintiffs alleged that Live Nation required artists seeking to perform at Live Nation’s large amphitheaters also purchase Live Nation’s promotion services.
Trial Begins; DOJ Settlement
The case proceeded to trial on March 2, 2026. Shortly after the trial began, the DOJ reached a settlement with Live Nation. The settlement included a $280 million settlement fund but notably did not require a divestiture of Ticketmaster.
The settlement agreement has not yet been filed publicly, but based on a term sheet filed with the court, in addition to the settlement fund, the agreement includes various behavioral and structural remedies addressing harms in the following markets:
- Monopolization in primary ticketing.
- Ticketmaster must make several changes to its contracting practices, including capping the length of exclusive agreements at four years.
- Live Nation is prohibited from steering content based on the identity of the primary ticketer or from retaliating against venues that select a primary ticketer other than Ticketmaster.
- Live Nation must permit any promoter to distribute up to 50% of primary tickets through any primary marketplace, and Ticketmaster must cap its service fees at 15%.
- Live Nation must terminate its ticketing services agreement with Oak View Group within 30 days.
- Monopolization in amphitheaters.
- Live Nation must divest ownership or control of 13 concert venues.
- Tying amphitheaters to promotion.
- Live Nation must allow artists to rent its amphitheaters regardless of whether the artist also retains Live Nation as a promoter and must offer rental terms at least as favorable as those provided to Live Nation-promoted artists.
Six states joined the DOJ’s settlement, but 33 states and the District of Columbia chose to continue the litigation, noting that they did not believe the DOJ’s settlement adequately remedied the harms alleged.
The settlement still requires judicial approval under the Tunney Act. It has not yet been submitted for that review, which will require a 60-day public comment period.
Jury Verdict and Next Steps
On April 15, 2026, after five to six weeks of testimony and four days of deliberations, the jury found for the plaintiff states on all claims. The jury found that the unlawful conduct harmed competition in each state. The jury found that residents in those states were overcharged by $1.72 per ticket with respect to Ticketmaster’s unlawful monopolization in the market for primary concert ticketing services. The jury also found for the plaintiff states on every state law claim.
Live Nation issued a press release noting that the award only applies to tickets sold to fans at 257 venues (20% of all tickets sold) in certain states over the past five years and estimating that the single damages figure would be less than $150 million, before trebling.
Next steps:
- Renewed JMOL Motion. Live Nation will renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), which the court had deferred until after the verdict. There is also a pending motion to strike the damages testimony of the plaintiff states’ economic expert.
- Appeal. In its press release, Live Nation indicated that it plans to appeal any unfavorable rulings on those motions.
- Remedy Phase. If the JMOL motions are denied, the case will proceed to remedies. The states have continued to seek a divestiture of Ticketmaster, though such remedies in antitrust conduct cases are rare.
Increased State AG Enforcement; Divergence with the DOJ and FTC
The states’ pursual of the Live Nation case to a jury verdict following the DOJ settlement, and winning, highlights and may add to a trend of increased state AG enforcement and divergence with the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”).
Divergence in the first Trump administration:
- T-Mobile/Sprint. In July 2019, to resolve potential antitrust issues in the $26 billion merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, the DOJ agreed to a consent decree requiring a divestiture of Sprint’s prepaid business (including Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile), certain spectrum, and more than 20,000 cell sites to DISH Network, along with seven years of network access, for DISH to build out its own 5G network. While five states joined, 14 other states, led by New York and California, sued to block the deal outright, noting concern about DISH’s ability or inclination to build a nationwide mobile network. A state AG challenge to a merger with a federal consent decree allowing it to proceed was highly unusual. In February 2020, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York denied the injunction and allowed the merger to proceed.
- Following that notable loss by the states and the changeover to the Biden administration, the prospect of state AG divergence receded. However, this jury verdict might signal and rekindle additional divergence between states and federal agencies on antitrust enforcement.
Divergence and increased state antitrust enforcement in the second Trump administration:
- Nexstar/Tegna. On March 19, 2026, in a transaction involving two large broadcasters, Nexstar closed its $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna after the DOJ and the Federal Communications Commission closed their investigations without requiring any remedies. A day prior, a coalition of eight state AGs led by California and New York had sued for a preliminary injunction, alleging the merger would substantially eliminate competition in more than 30 local markets and raise cable/satellite bills through higher retransmission fees. On April 17, 2026, Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting further integration of the companies and requiring Nexstar to operate Tegna as an independent business until final judgment.
- “Mini-HSR” laws. California has joined Washington and Colorado in adopting a state-level “mini-HSR” law, with bills pending in a half dozen other states.
Practical Takeaways
- Divestitures and other severe remedies remain a possibility in antitrust conduct cases involving vertically integrated businesses. Companies operating vertically integrated platforms should assess whether their business practices could be characterized as unlawful tying or monopoly maintenance. More broadly, companies should consider whether plaintiffs could frame their practices as a major industry player inhibiting rivals from being able to compete.
- Increased State AG Enforcement. Settling with the DOJ or FTC does not insulate defendants from state AG enforcement, particularly as states continue to diverge with the federal government on antitrust enforcement.
* * *
