Live Nation disputed the Department of Justice’s claim that it maintains a monopoly over the live entertainment industry, defended its controversial merger with Ticketmaster, and argued that breaking up the company would not result in lower prices for concert tickets.
On Thursday, May 23, the DOJ, along with 30 state and district attorneys, filed a major antitrust suit against Live Nation (the biggest concert promoter and venue operator) and Ticketmaster (the biggest ticketing sales company). The suit argues that the 2010 merger of the two companies gave Live Nation-Ticketmaster “power over performers, venues, and independent promoters in a ways that harm competition.” They further allege that the merger has stifled competition and innovation, leaving fans in the U.S. with “outdated technology” and higher ticket prices than fans in other countries.
In a statement, Live Nation’s Executive Vice President, Dan Wall, rejected these allegations, saying the antitrust suit “attempts to portray Live Nation and Ticketmaster as the cause of fan frustration with the live entertainment industry.” His statement reiterated many of the talking points Live Nation has wielded in its defense since the DOJ’s investigation into the company was revealed in 2022, and as rumblings about the impending antitrust suit grew this year.
Chief among those arguments is that neither Live Nation nor Ticketmaster set or control ticket prices — artists and their teams do. Wall said the antitrust suit “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices,” such as higher production costs, artist popularity, online ticket scalping, and secondary resale markets.
As for Ticketmaster’s infamous fees, which have long frustrated fans, Wall said Ticketmaster “retains only a modest portion of those fees,” and that its commission rates are significantly lower than many other digital retailers (including the popular ticket resale platform, StubHub). Live Nation has argued that just as artists set ticket prices, venues set and keep the majority of ticket fees — though, in many cases, that does mean it’s Live Nation setting and keeping those fees. As the DOJ notes, Live Nation “owns or controls” over 265 concert venues in North America, including more than 60 of the top amphitheaters in the U.S.
Still, Wall argued that Ticketmaster’s comparatively lower service charges are proof that it’s not wielding monopoly power, as the “defining feature of a monopolist is monopoly profits derived from monopoly pricing.” Wall went on to note that Live Nation’s overall net profit margin (1.4 percent for the fiscal year ending in Feb. 2024) is significantly lower than many other conglomerates, and that Live Nation and Ticketmaster face far more robust competition in the marketplace than the DOJ alleges.
“Every year, competition in the industry drives Live Nation to earn lower take rates from both concert promotion and ticketing,” Wall said. “The company is profitable and growing because it helps grow the industry, not because it has market power.”
Wall’s statement ended with a shot at the DOJ Front Office, which he claimed “did not want to believe the numbers” the company kept showing them. “The data conflicted too much with their preconception that Live Nation belongs in the ranks of the other ‘tech monopolists’ they have targeted,” he said, adding: “It is also clear that we are another casualty of this Administration’s decision to turn over antitrust enforcement to a populist urge that simply rejects how antitrust law works. Some call this ‘Anti-Monopoly,’ but in reality it is just anti-business.”