Following almost two years’ worth of investigations and chest puffing in Washington, D.C., the government this week filed its much-anticipated lawsuit against Ticketmaster parent company Live Nation, accusing the company of antitrust.
It was the formal start of a boxing match that’s likely to go many rounds—and both sides are coming out swinging. When announcing the suit, Attorney General Merrick Garland said, “It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”
The company replied almost immediately, saying, “Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment. . . . We will defend against these baseless allegations, use this opportunity to shed light on the industry, and continue to push for reforms that truly protect consumers and artists.”
There’s a lot to digest in the allegations—and questions remain about what will happen if the Department of Justice wins. Here’s where things stand at the moment.
Why is the DOJ suing Ticketmaster-Live Nation?
Lawmakers allege Ticketmaster uses unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise monopolistic control over the live events industry. The DOJ says the company retaliates against firms that try to compete with it, and has threatened and retaliated against venues that work with other ticket companies.
In a blog post it created to respond to the suit, Ticketmaster calls these claims “absurd,” adding the suit “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices, from increasing production costs to artist popularity, to 24/7 online ticket scalping that reveals the public’s willingness to pay far more than primary tickets cost. It blames Live Nation and Ticketmaster for high service charges, but ignores that Ticketmaster retains only a modest portion of those fees. In fact, primary ticketing is one of the least expensive digital distributions in the economy.”
Will this mean cheaper ticket prices, if the company is broken up?
The Justice Department says it will. Federal officials allege Ticketmaster arranges its contracts with venues to double down on the fees concertgoers pay. “A venue forced to pay Live Nation a $5 promotions rebate and Ticketmaster a portion of any increased fees would need to raise fees on fans by significantly more than $5 to break even,” the suit reads.
Live Nation says a breakup wouldn’t change anything, though, since ticket prices are set by venues and artists. A Ticketmaster comparison of its fees versus those of SeatGeek at four arenas claimed Ticketmaster’s fees were lower in seven of eight instances.
What will this mean for ticket resale prices?
Good question, but that’s still a bit fuzzy.
The suit accuses Live Nation of inflating prices in the secondary ticket sale marketplace, saying it controls “a growing share of ticket resales . . . accounting for nearly one-third of ticket resales in 2022” and makes it harder for fans to use rival platforms.
Live Nation did not directly address that charge in its extensive reply (and did not immediately reply to Fast Company’s request for additional comment), but it did say the antitrust suit distracted from real solutions such as letting artists cap resale prices.
What venues does Live Nation control?
Live Nation owns or controls more than 265 venues in North America, from the PNC Bank Arts Center in New Jersey to several House of Blues locations around the country. One study said the company operates 56 of the top amphitheaters in the country. Critics worry that with that many holdings and Ticketmaster’s wide footprint, Live Nation has the opportunity to dominate ticketing.
How does Taylor Swift play into all of this?
She’s not involved directly. Swift is not mentioned in either the DOJ lawsuit or Ticketmaster’s response. But indirectly it has a lot to do with her.
The phenomenal demand for tickets to Swift’s Eras Tour and the meltdown of Ticketmaster’s site, which left many people without a seat, put a spotlight on the company—especially when it delayed its general sale event. Needless to say, fans were furious and targeted their rage at the company.
In a blog post at the time, Ticketmaster claimed that the system issues sprang from a “staggering number of bot attacks.” That didn’t stop the government from getting involved, with Tennessee’s attorney general being the first to open a probe. The Senate Judiciary Committee later convened for a hearing looking at the live entertainment ticketing industry. Some 30 states joined the DOJ’s Wednesday filing.
This didn’t start with the Eras tour, though, did it?
No. When Live Nation acquired Ticketmaster in 2010, the Obama administration approved the deal but made the combined company sign a consent decree that barred it from pressuring concert venues to use its services. That decree was originally a 10-year order, but it was extended for another five years in 2020. Artists have been speaking out against Ticketmaster and its practices for years, though, most famously Pearl Jam, who asked then-President Bill Clinton to assist in its fight with Ticketmaster 30 years ago.
Is Live Nation-Ticketmaster a monopoly?
Ultimately, that’s something for the courts to decide. The DOJ is making its best case, pointing out in its suit that “in 2022, Ticketmaster accounted for at least 70% of the total face value associated with all tickets sold at large arenas and amphitheaters. No other rival ticketed more than 14%.” And in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2023, Jack Groetzinger, cofounder and CEO of SeatGeek, said Live Nation had a “monopolistic influence over the primary ticketing market.”
Ticketmaster and Live Nation strongly deny the label, though, saying, “The defining feature of a monopolist is monopoly profits derived from monopoly pricing. Live Nation in no way fits the profile. . . . Live Nation’s overall net profit margin is at the low end of profitable S&P 500 companies.”
How likely is a settlement?
It’s not out of the realm of possibility. In the long walk-up to this week’s filing, Brandon Ross, a partner at LightShed Ventures, said on Twitter/X that he expects the parties will ultimately strike some sort of deal, which will not result in the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
“It is possible that in addition to the consent agreement they do have, there could be a negotiation for additional, probably behavioral, concessions that come out of this,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s something around exclusivity . . . but I don’t think this is going to get broken up.”
<hr class=“wp-block-separator is-style-wide”/> https://www.fastcompany.com/91131212/could-livenation-ticketmaster-get-broken-up-doj-lawsuit-antitrust?partner=rss&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss
Melden Sie sich an, um einen Kommentar hinzuzufügen
Andere Beiträge in dieser Gruppe
Intel‘s promised $28 billion chip fabrication plants in Ohio are facing further delays, with the first factory in New Albany expected
TikTok and Instagram are flooded with reels of food influencers hyping already viral restaurants or bringing hundreds of thousands of eyes to hidden gems. With sauce-stained lips, exaggerated chew
An unsubstantiated online theory has recently taken hold, claiming that family vloggers are fleeing Los Angeles to escape newly introduced California laws designed to protect children featured in
At a press conference in the Oval Office earlier this month, Elon Musk—a billionaire who is not, at least formally, the President of the United States—was asked how the Department of Government Ef
Last Energy, a nuclear upstart backed by an Elon Musk-linked venture capital fund, says it plans to construct 30 microreactors on a site in Texas to supply electricity to data centers across the s
Democratic lawmakers demanded answers from billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Govern
