Live Nation and Ticketmaster asked a federal judge to dismiss the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit. Their 51‑page summary‑judgment motion says the DOJ and 41 state attorneys general failed to prove monopoly power or consumer harm. The filing landed in the Southern District of New York before Judge Arun Subramanian.
Dispute Over Market Definition
The companies argue the government used a narrow market definition that excludes many venues. That definition targets venues above 8,000 capacity that hosted at least 10 concerts in a year from 2017 to 2024. Live Nation says rivals such as SeatGeek, AXS, Eventim and Paciolan compete across a broader market. The filing claims Ticketmaster’s share would fall sharply if stadiums were included.
Live Nation also disputes the DOJ’s claims about exclusive contracts and tying promotion to ticketing. The company says venues prefer exclusives for higher upfront payments and simpler operations. It points to venue testimony that managers seek exclusive deals. Live Nation notes the DOJ deposed only one artist, who denied coercion. The motion argues three venue witnesses cannot prove market‑wide anticompetitive effects.
Focus on Consumer Harm
The filing stresses that monopoly cases require proof of monopoly power and consumer harm. Live Nation says the DOJ relied on inferences and rival statements rather than traditional evidence like higher prices or barriers to entry. The company cites the DOJ’s 2010 approval of the Live Nation–Ticketmaster merger, which acknowledged procompetitive benefits of vertical integration. It also notes an outside antitrust monitor reported no violations after a 2019 consent‑decree change.
If Judge Subramanian grants summary judgment, the government’s case could be dismissed or narrowed before trial. The DOJ will have weeks to respond. Meanwhile, Live Nation faces a separate FTC lawsuit over its secondary ticketing business.
The core claim is simple. Live Nation asks the court to end the case now. The company argues the government used flawed market definitions and weak evidence and failed to show harm to consumers. The judge’s decision will determine whether this dispute moves to trial.
About the Author
