The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, accusing the concert giant of being an illegal monopoly. The lawsuit, which draws on internal communications, provides a rare behind-the-scenes look at the industry.
According to the complaint, the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster in 2010 has harmed competition, hindered innovation, and led to higher ticket prices and fees for consumers. The Justice Department is calling for the company to be broken up.
In response, Live Nation, the world’s largest concert promoter, denies being a monopoly and claims to face more competition than ever. The company argues that the lawsuit will not reduce ticket prices or service fees.
The government’s case includes eye-opening emails allegedly written by Live Nation’s CEO, Michael Rapino, and other industry figures. These emails detail various accusations, including instances where Live Nation allegedly threatened commercial retaliation against competitors and manipulated ticket sales.
One example cited in the lawsuit involves Live Nation’s alleged efforts to block a rival ticketing company from selling tickets to a Kanye West concert. The government claims that Live Nation went to extreme lengths to protect its competitive edge, resulting in hundreds of customers being refused entry to the event.
Another accusation in the lawsuit involves Live Nation colluding with Oak View Group, initially viewed as a competitor, to avoid competing with each other and solidify Live Nation’s dominance in the industry. Oak View Group is accused of acting as an “agent” for Live Nation, delivering threats to venues considering switching from Ticketmaster to another ticket provider.
The government also highlights Live Nation’s acquisition of rival companies as a strategy to eliminate competition in both concert promotion and ticketing. Examples include the acquisition of United Concerts in Utah and AC Entertainment in Tennessee, which ultimately led to the demise of competing ticketing companies.
Live Nation has denied the allegations in the lawsuit, arguing that its acquisitions were strategic business moves and not aimed at stifling competition. The company maintains that it has not engaged in anti-competitive practices and refutes the government’s claims of being a monopoly.
The lawsuit against Live Nation sheds light on the inner workings of the concert industry and raises questions about competition, innovation, and consumer pricing in the live entertainment sector. As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of ticketing and concert promotion.
