DOJ's Most Recent Monopolization Case Reflects Several Agency Priorities Including Expansion of Section 2 to Respond to Headline-Grabbing Popular Demands
May 28, 2024
On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), along with 30 state and district attorneys general, filed a lawsuit seeking to break-up Live Nation Entertainment Inc. (Live Nation) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ticketmaster LLC (Ticketmaster).1 The DOJ alleges Live Nation has a monopoly over ticketing, artist promotion, artist management and venue ownership and operation—all resulting in a pervasive influence over the entire music industry. The DOJ alleges Live Nation harmed competition and extended its monopoly power in violation of the Sherman Act by 1) colluding with competitors and retaliating against potential entrants in the U.S. concert promotions market, 2) imposing exclusivity requirements to prevent venues from using rival ticketing or promotional services, 3) restricting artist access to venues unless artists use Live Nation's promotional services and 4) acquiring smaller and regional competitors. According to the DOJ, this conduct hurts performers, venues, and concertgoers who must pay a “Ticketmaster Tax” in the form of fees that ultimately raise prices for fans.
This monopolization lawsuit is the latest chapter in a long history between the DOJ and Live Nation. In 2009, when Live Nation proposed to acquire Ticketmaster, the DOJ expressed concern about combining the companies’ large market shares in ticketing and concert promotion. The transaction closed but only after the DOJ entered a consent decree with the parties, requiring Live Nation to divest certain assets and license Ticketmaster's ticketing platform to competitors.2 The consent decree also prohibited Live Nation from retaliating against venues that worked with another primary ticketing service.
In 2020, the DOJ filed a motion alleging that Live Nation had violated the terms of the consent decree by retaliating against venues that opted to use competing ticketing services, including by withholding live concerts that it promoted and managed.3 The parties ultimately agreed to modify the order, clarifying that withholding concerts in response to a venue selecting another primary ticketing service was prohibited conduct under the order and extending the consent decree's term until 2025.
In this latest move against Live Nation, the DOJ alleges new wrongdoing by the company—namely that Live Nation and Ticketmaster pursued a variety of independent exclusionary practices that built up the company’s power on one side of the market and allowed it more influence to condition service in other parts of the market. In the DOJ’s complaint, the individual practices are described as working together to sustain an illegal monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act and the DOJ “seeks to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster's monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists.”4
The complaint recounts many specific exchanges between Live Nation and members of the industry, alleging that each constitutes anticompetitive conduct.
As described in the Complaint:
The complaint is noteworthy because the DOJ is seeking structural relief under the Sherman Act, which would have the effect of unwinding a merger that it investigated and policed for over a decade. The DOJ alleges that competition cannot be restored without this remedy: Live Nation is too intertwined within the live entertainment industry, given its role as ticketer, promoter, artist manager, and venue owner. According to the DOJ, Live Nation's "flywheel" business model—in which Live Nation can capture fees and revenues from fans, use the revenue to enter into exclusive promotion agreements with artists, and then use its dominant position among artists to force venues into long term exclusive ticketing deals—forecloses competitors and prevents Live Nation from having to face market forces that would lower fees for fans.
The lawsuit continues a recent trend of aggressive antitrust enforcement in the United States, with a particular focus on companies whose high market shares have persisted for long stretches of time. It also exemplifies this Administration’s willingness to rethink the merger policy of the past. Companies should take note of the following takeaways:
If you have any questions about this client alert or how these recent antitrust enforcement trends could affect your company, do not hesitate to reach out to Maureen Ohlhausen, Jamillia Ferris, Taylor Owings, Brendan Coffman, or any member of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's antitrust and competition practice.
[1] See United States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al, No. 1:24-cv-03973, Compl, (2d Cir. May 23, 2024).
[2] See Ticketmaster, Final Judgment (D.D.C. July 30, 2010).
[3] See Ticketmaster, Mot. to Modify Final Judgment & Enter Am. Final Judgment (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2020).
[4] See Press Release, DOJ, Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry, (May 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert.
[5] Complaint, Live Nation Entertainment, supra note 1 at ¶ 74.
[6] Complaint, Live Nation Entertainment, supra note 1 at ¶ 58.
[7] Complaint, Live Nation Entertainment, supra note 1 at ¶ 117.
[8] Complaint, Live Nation Entertainment, supra note 1 at ¶ 123.