Office of Public Affairs Attorney General Merrick B Garland Delivers Remarks on Lawsuit Against Live NationTicketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry United States Department of Justice
pAn official website of the United States governmentppHeres how you knowpp
Official websites use gov
A gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States
pp
Secure gov websites use HTTPS
A lock
Lock
A locked padlock
or https means youve safely connected to the gov website Share sensitive information only on official secure websites
ppWashington DC
United StatesppRemarks as DeliveredppGood morningppEarlier today the Department of Justice joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia sued Live Nation Entertainment and its whollyowned subsidiary Ticketmaster for violating the Sherman Antitrust ActppIn recent years Live NationTicketmasters exorbitant fees and technological failures have been criticized by fans and artists alike ppBut we are not here today because Live NationTicketmasters conduct is inconvenient or frustrating We are here because as we allege that conduct is anticompetitive and illegal ppOur complaint makes clear what happens when a monopolist dedicates its resources to entrenching its monopoly power and insulating itself from competition rather than investing in better products and servicesppWe allege that Live Nation has illegally monopolized markets across the live concert industry in the United States for far too long It is time to break it upppLive NationTicketmaster has made itself ubiquitous in the live entertainment industry ppIt controls at least 80 of primary ticketing at major concert venues ppIt directly manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 60 of concert promotions across the country ppAnd it owns or controls more than 60 of large amphitheaters in the United States ppWe allege that to sustain this dominance Live Nation relies on unlawful anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States and over the fans artists independent promoters and venues that power the industryppThe result is that fans pay more in fees Artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts Smaller promoters get squeezed out And venues have fewer real choices for ticketing servicesppAs detailed in our complaint Live Master LiveNationTicketmaster locks out competition in ticketing through the use of longterm exclusive ticketing contracts with venues that can last over a decade as well as by acquiring venues themselves ppWith exclusive agreements that cover more than 70 of concert ticket sales at major concert venues across the country Ticketmaster can impose a seemingly endless list of fees on fans Those include ticketing fees service fees convenience fees Platinum fees Pricemaster fees per order fees handling fees and payment processing fees among others ppFor fans in the United States this illegal conduct means higher prices In other countries where venues are not bound by Ticketmasters exclusive ticketing contracts venues often use multiple ticketing companies for the same event And fans see lower fees and more innovative ticketing products as a resultppWe also allege that Live NationTicketmaster uses these longterm ticketing agreements with venues and its control over those venues to unlawfully pressure artists into agreeing to use its promotion services ppIn fact Live Nation often sacrifices profits it could earn as a venue owner by letting its venues sit empty rather than opening them to artists who do not use Live Nation promotion services even during peak concert seasonppLive Nation has not only deployed anticompetitive tactics to coerce artists and venues into using its services and to charge fans excessive fees it has also worked strategically and illegally to eliminate the threat of potential rivals from emerging across any of its businessesppAs detailed in our complaint Live Nation suffocates its competition using a variety of tactics from acquisitions of smaller regional promoters and venues to threats and retaliation to agreements with rivals designed to neutralize them ppThis has included acquiring or coopting key independent promoters even when the economics of a particular deal did not make sense for Live Nations promotions business ppFor example as recounted in our complaint Live Nation acquired a controlling stake in AC Entertainment an independent promoter in Tennessee Live Nations chief strategy officer assured executives that even though the numbers are not super exciting and this feels like more of a defensive move the acquisition helped grow our moat in the Nashville marketppWhen faced with another potential competitor to its promotions business Live Nation took action to ensure that that competitor would not threaten its dominance in the live music industry ppLive Nation initially categorized that competitor the venue operator Oak View Group as one of its Biggest Competitor Threats Over time however Oak View and Live Nation morphed from competitors into partnersppAs detailed in our complaint Live Nation executives repeatedly scolded Oak View for trying to compete In one instance in 2016 Live Nations CEO warned Oak View that competition would only lead to artists demanding more compensation The Live Nation CEO emailed Oak View writing Lets make sure we dont let them now start playing us off referring to a prominent artist agency Oak View backed downppIn a similar instance in 2022 Live Nations CEO scolded Oak Views CEO who would be so stupid to do this and play into the artist agents armsppOak View again backed down We have never promoted without you Wont said its CEO And later added I never want to be competitors ppWe also allege that Live Nation has repeatedly wielded its powers to keep its rivals from expanding in the US concert promotions market through threats and retaliation In 2021 Live Nation threatened to retaliate against private equity firm Silver Lake unless one of the latters portfolio companies Teg stopped competing with Live Nation for artist promotion contracts in the United StatesppLive Nations CEO told Silver Lake that he failed to understand why Silver Lake continued to invest in a business that competes with Live NationppThe threats ultimately succeeded and Silver Lake has tried to sell Teg altogetherppWe allege that Live Nation does not maintain its dominance in the live entertainment industry by staying ahead of its competition on the merits It does so by unlawfully eliminating its competition ppWe allege that Live Nation controls the live entertainment industry in the United States because it is breaking the law ppI am grateful to the Justice Departments Antitrust Division for their excellent work on this case The live entertainment industry is complex and well resourced Taking on this case has required persistence and diligence by the antitrust lawyers who are behind me today and by their team I am proud to work with themppPeople always remember the first time that they were transformed by live music I still remember as a senior in college going to a Bonnie Raitt concert and seeing a then upandcoming musician named Bruce Springsteen play as a warmup act We all knew that we had just seen the future of rock and rollppThe Justice Department filed this lawsuit on behalf of fans who should be able to go to concerts without a monopoly standing in their way ppWe have filed this lawsuit on behalf of artists who should be able to plan their tours around their fans and not be dictated by an unlawful monopolistppWe have filed this lawsuit on behalf of the independent promoters and venues which should be able to compete on a level playing fieldppAnd we have filed this lawsuit on behalf of the American peopleppIt is time for fans and artists to stop paying the price for Live Nations monopolyppIt is time to restore competition and innovation in the entertainment industryppIt is time to break up Live NationTicketmasterppThe American people are ready for itppThe Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B Garland on the Supreme Courts decision in United States v RahimippFor those of you I havent had the chance to meet my name is Michael Kades I serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division at theppThe Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B Garland on the Supreme Courts decision in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine ppOffice of Public Affairs
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530ppOffice of Public Affairs Direct Line
2025142007ppDepartment of Justice Main Switchboard
2025142000ppSignup for Email Updates
Social MediappppHave a question about Government Servicesp
Official websites use gov
A gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States
pp
Secure gov websites use HTTPS
A lock
Lock
A locked padlock
or https means youve safely connected to the gov website Share sensitive information only on official secure websites
ppWashington DC
United StatesppRemarks as DeliveredppGood morningppEarlier today the Department of Justice joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia sued Live Nation Entertainment and its whollyowned subsidiary Ticketmaster for violating the Sherman Antitrust ActppIn recent years Live NationTicketmasters exorbitant fees and technological failures have been criticized by fans and artists alike ppBut we are not here today because Live NationTicketmasters conduct is inconvenient or frustrating We are here because as we allege that conduct is anticompetitive and illegal ppOur complaint makes clear what happens when a monopolist dedicates its resources to entrenching its monopoly power and insulating itself from competition rather than investing in better products and servicesppWe allege that Live Nation has illegally monopolized markets across the live concert industry in the United States for far too long It is time to break it upppLive NationTicketmaster has made itself ubiquitous in the live entertainment industry ppIt controls at least 80 of primary ticketing at major concert venues ppIt directly manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 60 of concert promotions across the country ppAnd it owns or controls more than 60 of large amphitheaters in the United States ppWe allege that to sustain this dominance Live Nation relies on unlawful anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States and over the fans artists independent promoters and venues that power the industryppThe result is that fans pay more in fees Artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts Smaller promoters get squeezed out And venues have fewer real choices for ticketing servicesppAs detailed in our complaint Live Master LiveNationTicketmaster locks out competition in ticketing through the use of longterm exclusive ticketing contracts with venues that can last over a decade as well as by acquiring venues themselves ppWith exclusive agreements that cover more than 70 of concert ticket sales at major concert venues across the country Ticketmaster can impose a seemingly endless list of fees on fans Those include ticketing fees service fees convenience fees Platinum fees Pricemaster fees per order fees handling fees and payment processing fees among others ppFor fans in the United States this illegal conduct means higher prices In other countries where venues are not bound by Ticketmasters exclusive ticketing contracts venues often use multiple ticketing companies for the same event And fans see lower fees and more innovative ticketing products as a resultppWe also allege that Live NationTicketmaster uses these longterm ticketing agreements with venues and its control over those venues to unlawfully pressure artists into agreeing to use its promotion services ppIn fact Live Nation often sacrifices profits it could earn as a venue owner by letting its venues sit empty rather than opening them to artists who do not use Live Nation promotion services even during peak concert seasonppLive Nation has not only deployed anticompetitive tactics to coerce artists and venues into using its services and to charge fans excessive fees it has also worked strategically and illegally to eliminate the threat of potential rivals from emerging across any of its businessesppAs detailed in our complaint Live Nation suffocates its competition using a variety of tactics from acquisitions of smaller regional promoters and venues to threats and retaliation to agreements with rivals designed to neutralize them ppThis has included acquiring or coopting key independent promoters even when the economics of a particular deal did not make sense for Live Nations promotions business ppFor example as recounted in our complaint Live Nation acquired a controlling stake in AC Entertainment an independent promoter in Tennessee Live Nations chief strategy officer assured executives that even though the numbers are not super exciting and this feels like more of a defensive move the acquisition helped grow our moat in the Nashville marketppWhen faced with another potential competitor to its promotions business Live Nation took action to ensure that that competitor would not threaten its dominance in the live music industry ppLive Nation initially categorized that competitor the venue operator Oak View Group as one of its Biggest Competitor Threats Over time however Oak View and Live Nation morphed from competitors into partnersppAs detailed in our complaint Live Nation executives repeatedly scolded Oak View for trying to compete In one instance in 2016 Live Nations CEO warned Oak View that competition would only lead to artists demanding more compensation The Live Nation CEO emailed Oak View writing Lets make sure we dont let them now start playing us off referring to a prominent artist agency Oak View backed downppIn a similar instance in 2022 Live Nations CEO scolded Oak Views CEO who would be so stupid to do this and play into the artist agents armsppOak View again backed down We have never promoted without you Wont said its CEO And later added I never want to be competitors ppWe also allege that Live Nation has repeatedly wielded its powers to keep its rivals from expanding in the US concert promotions market through threats and retaliation In 2021 Live Nation threatened to retaliate against private equity firm Silver Lake unless one of the latters portfolio companies Teg stopped competing with Live Nation for artist promotion contracts in the United StatesppLive Nations CEO told Silver Lake that he failed to understand why Silver Lake continued to invest in a business that competes with Live NationppThe threats ultimately succeeded and Silver Lake has tried to sell Teg altogetherppWe allege that Live Nation does not maintain its dominance in the live entertainment industry by staying ahead of its competition on the merits It does so by unlawfully eliminating its competition ppWe allege that Live Nation controls the live entertainment industry in the United States because it is breaking the law ppI am grateful to the Justice Departments Antitrust Division for their excellent work on this case The live entertainment industry is complex and well resourced Taking on this case has required persistence and diligence by the antitrust lawyers who are behind me today and by their team I am proud to work with themppPeople always remember the first time that they were transformed by live music I still remember as a senior in college going to a Bonnie Raitt concert and seeing a then upandcoming musician named Bruce Springsteen play as a warmup act We all knew that we had just seen the future of rock and rollppThe Justice Department filed this lawsuit on behalf of fans who should be able to go to concerts without a monopoly standing in their way ppWe have filed this lawsuit on behalf of artists who should be able to plan their tours around their fans and not be dictated by an unlawful monopolistppWe have filed this lawsuit on behalf of the independent promoters and venues which should be able to compete on a level playing fieldppAnd we have filed this lawsuit on behalf of the American peopleppIt is time for fans and artists to stop paying the price for Live Nations monopolyppIt is time to restore competition and innovation in the entertainment industryppIt is time to break up Live NationTicketmasterppThe American people are ready for itppThe Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B Garland on the Supreme Courts decision in United States v RahimippFor those of you I havent had the chance to meet my name is Michael Kades I serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division at theppThe Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B Garland on the Supreme Courts decision in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine ppOffice of Public Affairs
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530ppOffice of Public Affairs Direct Line
2025142007ppDepartment of Justice Main Switchboard
2025142000ppSignup for Email Updates
Social MediappppHave a question about Government Servicesp
