In United States of America et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment et al., 1:24-cv-03973, (S.D.N.Y. Apr 15, 2026), a jury recently determined that Live Nation, one of the world’s largest entertainment companies, acted as a monopoly in violation of state and federal antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act. This verdict has the potential to shake up the live music industry—and the companies running it.
Anyone who attends a live event at a large venue in the U.S. likely uses Live Nation’s services in some form. The vertically integrated entertainment powerhouse—which brought in $25.2 billion in revenue in 2025—works across all markets of live entertainment, including promotion, venue ownership/operation, sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.
Live Nation acquired its ticketing subsidiary, Ticketmaster, in 2010 after the Department of Justice (DOJ) cleared the merger under a consent decree that prohibited Live Nation from engaging in certain potentially anticompetitive behaviors and requiring it to divest some of its assets. However, Live Nation continued to receive criticism from the public, advocacy groups, and lawmakers alike regarding claims of hidden fees and exorbitant prices attributed to the company’s monopolistic control of the live entertainment market.
On May 23, 2024, the DOJ filed its original civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster in the Southern District of New York. Besides the DOJ, the plaintiff side included a cohort of states and the District of Columbia. While the DOJ and a handful of states ultimately reached settlements with Live Nation soon after the trial’s start, 33 states and D.C. proceeded to verdict.
The complaint referred to Live Nation as “the gatekeeper for the delivery of nearly all live music in America today,” citing that Live Nation controls approximately 80% of major concert venues’ primary ticketing for concerts and is involved during the entire lifecycle of many live entertainment events.
The complaint went on to allege that Live Nation was threatening toward and/or retaliating against venues that worked with other promotional or ticketing companies or would lock venues into long-term exclusionary contracts. The DOJ also accused Live Nation of forcing artists to use its promotional services in order to gain access to large venues controlled by Live Nation.
While the suit was later narrowed by District Judge Hon. Arun Subramanian, the heart of the trial revolved around claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit 1) agreements that restrain trade and 2) monopolization, respectively. The claims covered the following markets:
However, for monopolistic behavior to violate Section 2, case law mandates that the monopolist’s actions “must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers. In contrast, harm to one or more competitors will not suffice.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The DOJ argued that Live Nation’s anticompetitive practices harmed consumers through higher fees and the stifling of innovation and quality services.
In a motion for summary judgment, Live Nation argued that the plaintiffs failed to clearly define relevant markets and instead created “gerrymandered markets” that made it appear as if Live Nation held a larger market share than it really did. Live Nation further argued that the live entertainment market is more competitive than ever and that the plaintiffs were unable to actually demonstrate any anticompetitive effects resulting from the company’s business practices. Later, at trial, the entertainment giant also posited that its prominence and success in the industry was due to its superior product and platform.
On April 15, after a multi-week trial, a jury sided with the plaintiffs and found that Live Nation willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in the relevant markets through exclusionary conduct and caused anticompetitive effects. It also found that, under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Live Nation had unlawfully tied artist promotion services to the artists’ use of large amphitheaters.
The jury found that Live Nation’s exclusionary conduct included:
The jury also found an unlawful tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because artists’ access to Live Nation amphitheaters was tied to the use of Live Nation’s promotion services.
The jury further found that this conduct harmed competition and caused $1.72 per-ticket overcharges for certain primary concert tickets in the plaintiff states.
While the remedies resulting from the verdict have yet to be decided, these could feasibly include monetary damages, divesting assets, or even breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster. If the remedy is a drastic one—and if it survives Live Nation’s promises to renew certain motions and appeal unfavorable rulings—it could potentially have far-reaching effects on artists, fans, and other entertainment companies.
Meanwhile, the states’ victory stands in somewhat awkward contrast to the DOJ’s decision to settle mid-trial, a decision that was heavily criticized by many industry insiders. The terms of this settlement agreement must still undergo judicial review.
If you have any further questions regarding antitrust and competitive business practices, please contact Bernard M. Resser.
Bernard M. Resser