The Department of Justice (DOJ) in the US has opened a criminal antitrust investigation into how live music giants responded to mass concert cancellations at the start of Covid-19.

The probe, which reportedly started during Joe Biden’s tenure as president but has ramped up under the Trump administration, is said to be looking at whether Live Nation and AEG Presents illegally colluded on refund policies.

Under antitrust laws, collusion with competitors can be a criminal offence. Live Nation denies any wrongdoing, while the DOJ and AEG are yet to comment.

“It is not illegal for artist agents, promoters and ticketing companies to work together to solve the unprecedented challenges of a global pandemic,” says Live Nation EVP of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall. “While Live Nation contributed to this industry effort in good faith, we set our own unique policies and refund terms to support fans and artists.

“We are proud of our leadership during those trying times, and if any charges result from this investigation, we will defend them vigorously”

“We did not collude with AEG or anyone else. We are proud of our leadership during those trying times, and if any charges result from this investigation, we will defend them vigorously.”

In March 2020, both major global concert promoters and the big four music agencies put their names to a joint statement collectively recommending the postponement of all large-scale live events worldwide up to the end of the month. The talent agencies are not been investigated according to Bloomberg, which first reported the story.

The development comes 12 months after the DOJ launched a lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster after alleging the company violated antitrust laws, with that case set to go to trial in 2026.

Last week, the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also jointly launched a public inquiry to identify “unfair and anticompetitive practices and conduct” in the concert and ticketing industry following Donald Trump’s executive order, signed on 31 March.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have jointly opened a public inquiry to identify “unfair and anticompetitive practices and conduct” in the concert and ticketing industry.

The two federal agencies are inviting members of the public to submit comments and information on “harmful practices and on potential regulation or legislation to protect consumers in the industry”.

The information will be used in their preparation of the report and recommendations directed by president Donald Trump’s executive order, signed on 31 March, which claims to bring “common sense” changes to live event ticketing.

The executive order – which Trump signed while flanked by long-time supporter Kid Rock – directs the attorney general and the FTC to “ensure that competition laws are appropriately enforced in the concert and entertainment industry”, as well calling on the FTC to “rigorously enforce” the Better Online Tickets Sales (BOTS) Act.

“Competitive live entertainment markets should deliver value to artists and fans alike,” says assistant attorney general Abigail Slater of the DOJ’s antitrust division. “We will continue to closely examine this market and look for opportunities where vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws can lead to increased competition that makes tickets more affordable for fans while offering fairer compensation for artists.”

“President Trump has sent a clear message that bad actors who exploit fans and distort the marketplace will not be tolerated”

The agencies are seeking information from the public about unfair and anticompetitive conduct and practices in the industry, and are also encouraging comments providing information on the competitive effects of current state and federal regulations and laws on the business, including the secondary ticketing market.

“Many Americans feel like they are being priced out of live entertainment by scalpers, bots, and other unfair and deceptive practices,” says FTC chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Now their voices are being heard. President Trump has sent a clear message that bad actors who exploit fans and distort the marketplace will not be tolerated. The FTC is proud to help deliver on that promise and restore fair and competitive markets that benefit ordinary Americans.”

The public will have 60 days to submit comments. Artists, small businesses, trade groups, industry analysts and other entities “impacted by anticompetitive practices in the live concert and entertainment industry” are also invited to provide comments.

The action comes almost a year after the DOJ launched a lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster after alleging the company violated antitrust laws. That case is set to go to trial in 2026.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

Ten additional states have joined the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation.

The attorneys general (AGs) of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont have backed the DOJ’s lawsuit, first filed in May, which accuses LN-Ticketmaster of monopolisation and other unlawful conduct.

The DOJ and its expanded group of 40 co-plaintiffs have now filed an amended complaint in the Southern District of New York, also alleging “additional details about Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s anticompetitive course of conduct in markets across the live entertainment industry”.

The bipartisan coalition is seeking treble the monetary damages initially sought from the companies, who merged in 2010.

“Live Nation and Ticketmaster have abused the market to overcharge consumers and harm venues and artists”

“Live Nation and Ticketmaster have abused the market to overcharge consumers and harm venues and artists, and my office will ensure this illegal conduct is stopped,” says New York AG Letitia James. “Through this version of the amended lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, my office is seeking to recover damages for New York consumers who were overcharged by Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

“It’s time for a new era where fans, venues, and artists are not taken advantage of by big corporations that run the world of live events.”

The DOJ’s allegations include acquiring competitors and competitive threats, restricting artists’ access to venues, threatening and retaliating against venues that work with rivals, locking out competition with exclusive contracts and blocking venues from using multiple ticketing firms. It also claims the firm “exploits” its relationship with venue giant Oak View Group (OVG).

“Live Nation’s conduct has harmed fans because they have been left with fewer concerts, have had more limited choices among touring artists, have paid higher ticketing fees and have experienced a lower-quality ticketing experience than they otherwise would have but for Live Nation’s anticompetitive conduct,” reads the revised complaint.

A Live Nation spokesperson says there is “nothing new” in the amended lawsuit.

“The lawsuit still won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows”

“The lawsuit still won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows,” adds the spokesperson. “We look forward to sharing more facts as the case progresses.”

Live Nation’s EVP, corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall has also issued an updated response to the suit in an online post.

“Live Nation is in the business of bringing the joy of live entertainment to people and to that end connecting artists to fans and supporting a productive live entertainment ecosystem,” says Wall. “That is what we do – better than anyone else – and what we will continue to do as we challenge this lawsuit.”

Wall, who joined Live Nation last year after more than 12 years as a key advisor to the firm, adds: “Is the ticketing marketplace confusing to consumers? Yes, it certainly is. And we have been very clear in the halls of Congress and at the DOJ that we favour genuine reforms that would actually help fans get tickets at the price the artist has set for them to pay.

“Fans want to see the bands and sports teams they love, and it infuriates them that tickets sell out on Ticketmaster and are then available by the hundreds on secondary online sites at double and triple the cost. But the government has chosen to do nothing about this. Instead, it has filed a case which misleads the public into thinking that ticket prices will be lower if something is done about Live Nation and Ticketmaster.”

Earlier this summer, a New York judge said the case could go to trial in early 2026.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

Legends has reached a US$3.5 million (€3.2m) settlement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) after being accused of “illegal premerger coordination” in connection with its planned purchase of ASM Global.

The New York-headquartered premium experiences giant confirmed in November 2023 that it had agreed to acquire ASM in a reputed $2.4 billion deal – subject to regulatory approvals – creating a premium global live events firm.

However, the DOJ filed a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, alleging Legends had exercised “operational control over aspects of ASM during the HSR waiting period involving venue management services for an arena in California”.

The HSR (Hart-Scott-Rodino) Act prohibits companies from “improperly combining operations or other aspects of their businesses” until the required waiting period has expired.

“Companies must remain separate and independent before they close their merger,” says deputy assistant attorney general Andrew Forman of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. “Our complaint alleges that Legends did not live up to that obligation.”

At the same time as filing the lawsuit, the DOJ put forward a proposed final judgment that, if approved by the court, would resolve the case.

“We look forward to closing our deal with ASM Global this month”

Under the terms of the settlement, which offers no determination of liability, Legends must pay a $3.5m civil penalty, refrain from certain conduct, appoint an antitrust compliance officer, implement an antitrust training and compliance program and submit regular compliance reporting to the department.

“The proposed settlement requires Legends to pay a meaningful civil penalty and imposes significant obligations to try to ensure that Legends complies with the law moving forward,” adds Forman. “I commend our tremendous investigative teams who remain vigilant in trying to ensure that there is no improper coordination between parties before closing.”

Founded in 2008, Legends is backed by global investment firm Sixth Street. Its clients include prestigious brands such as Real Madrid, SoFi Stadium, Dallas Cowboys, FC Barcelona, New York Yankees and the Ryder Cup.

A spokesperson for Legends says the ASM acquisition remains on track to close before the end of August.

“We are pleased this matter is resolved,” says the spokesperson. “Moving forward, we are focused on continuing to serve our clients, and we look forward to closing our deal with ASM Global this month.”

Los Angeles-headquartered ASM Global, which was formed in 2019 following a merger between arena operators AEG Facilities and Onex’s SMG, operates buildings including ICC Sydney Convention Center, Avicii Arena in Stockholm, OVO Arena Wembley, Coca-Cola Arena in Dubai and State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

Live Nation’s Dan Wall has insisted there is no “good faith argument” to break up the company with Ticketmaster amid the fallout from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust lawsuit.

Wall, the company’s EVP, regulatory affairs, joined president/CFO Joe Berchtold on a call with investors to discuss the suit, which accuses LN and Ticketmaster, who merged in 2010, of engaging “in a variety of tactics to eliminate competition and monopolise markets”.

The DOJ’s allegations include acquiring competitors and competitive threats, restricting artists’ access to venues, threatening and retaliating against venues that work with rivals, locking out competition with exclusive contracts and blocking venues from using multiple ticketing firms. It also claims the firm “exploits” its relationship with venue giant Oak View Group (OVG).

Live Nation’s share price dropped in the wake of yesterday’s (23 May) announcement but has since stabilised.

Speaking to shareholders on the regulatory update call, Berchtold said he had been optimistic of reaching a resolution with the DOJ prior to the filing in the United States District Court Southern District of New York.

“We didn’t see any of the issues to be structural or fundamental to the nature of the makeup of the company,” he said. “[We] saw them all as discrete business practices and were hopeful that, because of that, we would be able to reach a settlement. Obviously, that wasn’t their agenda, ultimately, and we are where we are today.”

“It is exactly the concerns that were considered by the Obama administration 15 years ago, and that are covered by the consent decree”

Berchtold suggested one area of “disconnect” with the DOJ centred on the definition of competition in the marketplace.

“In our mind, competition is competing in the promotion side with the artist as the consumer, and then that artist very effectively engages multiple bidders to compete for their services,” he said. “The artist takes an increasing portion of the money from the show, and they are the beneficiary of that competition.

“The DOJ has a different view in terms of holding us accountable for the service fees and the ticket prices, even though we’re not the beneficiary to the largest extent of either those numbers. We don’t unilaterally make the decision on what those numbers are going to be; they’re driven primarily by the venues and by the promoter. So we clearly don’t agree with them in terms of the fundamental of the assertions that they’re making.”

Wall, who joined Live Nation last year after more than 12 years as a key advisor to the firm, alluded to US attorney general’s Merrick Garland’s statement that it was “time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster”.

“It is exactly the concerns that were considered by the Obama administration 15 years ago, and that are covered by the consent decree,” he argued. “And in those circumstances, we just don’t believe that there’s really any good faith argument to be made here that there could be a breakup. However, we all know that that’s what the most effective way to get the big headlines was and I think that that’s why we’re seeing that. It’s very unfortunate.

“There’s never been a circumstance where the DOJ allowed a merger to happen under a consent decree with behavioural remedies, which it said was an effective remedy, and then came back later and tried to say that that should be broken up.”

“We will make every effort to try to get this case to trial in a year”

Addressing the likely timescale of the case, Wall said: “We will move this along as quickly as we can. We will make every effort to try to get this case to trial in a year, or if not in a year, a year and a half, and certainly not long after that. We’re committed to putting the resources in to get that done and getting this behind us because we feel very confident about about our position on these claims.”

He was also critical of the DOJ’s demand for a jury trial, dismissing the move as a “stunt”.

“This is a stunt, a strategy that the DOJ used in the Google ad-tech case, and it’s highly unusual in that antitrust cases like this, historically, have always been tried to to judges rather than juries – because when the government is the plaintiff, it is seeking injunctive relief and all claims for injunctive relief are tried by judges rather than juries.

“It seems like a pretty transparent effort to try to avoid the scrutiny of a judge. And I don’t think it’s necessarily a smart move, because the very first message that you send to the judge is that you don’t really want him or her to have control over the outcome of this, and that’s not a very smart message to send a judge at the beginning of a case.”

Wall was also asked about the implications for the lawsuit of a potential administration change, should Donald Trump return to the White House following November’s US election.

“That’s a tough one, for sure,” he said. “If we just kind of go back in time and you asked me whether I think that the first Trump administration would have brought this case, I would tell you that I don’t think that any prior administration – Republican or Democrat – would have brought this case. But the circumstances, looking to the future, it would depend a lot on who was appointed to these positions, and that just makes it kind of vulnerable.”

“Live Nation has scolded Oak View Group multiple times for trying to compete”

The 128-page filing makes reference to LN’s relationship with OVG, which it describes as a “potential-competitor-turned-partner that has described itself as a ‘hammer’ and ‘protect[or]’ for Live Nation.

“In recent years, Oak View Group has avoided bidding against Live Nation for artist talent and influenced venues to sign exclusive agreements with Ticketmaster,” it states. “For example, Live Nation has scolded Oak View Group multiple times for trying to compete. In one instance, Live Nation asked, ‘who would be so stupid to… play into [an artist agent’s] arms,’ and on another occasion, Live Nation stated, ‘let’s make sure we don’t let [the artist agency] now start playing us off.’

“Live Nation and Oak View Group have colluded and established a partnership to allocate business lines, avoid competing with each other, and chart a mutually beneficial plan to cement Live Nation’s dominance.”

Wall has contested the claims in a lengthy blog, pointing out that OVG is a venue management company rather than a concert promoter.

“DOJ’s claim is based on two incidents in which Live Nation and OVG were discussing what to do when an OVG venue wanted to book on occasional show itself on a dark night,” he continued. “To portray that as an agreement not to compete in concert promotion is farcical.

“Regardless, OVG’s behaviour as a venue operator is fully consistent with every major arena and stadium in the country – they need to have an in house booker who helps fill otherwise dark nights, but they have no interest in systematically taking on the risk of guarantees that could be in the millions of dollars for a show or tens of millions of dollars for a tour.”

“There is no truth that this brief exchange had anything to do with Silver Lake’s decision to sell its stake in TEG”

In another startling allegation, it says that LN threatened commercial retaliation against private equity firm Silver Lake in 2021, unless the latter’s subsidiary TEG stopped competing with Live Nation for artist promotion contracts in the US. It claims that the threats “ultimately succeeded, and Silver Lake has tried to sell TEG altogether”.

“This claim reveals not only a disregard for the facts, but also deep hypocrisy,” replied Wall. “The current DOJ and FTC have been vocal critics of private equity companies making multiple investments in the same industry because of competitive ‘entanglements’. So was Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino when, after it had already made an investment in OVG, Silver Lake Partners decided to invest in the Australian live entertainment company, TEG.

“Rapino’s complaint was fundamentally the same as the DOJ/FTC concern with private equity rollups: it created a conflict between OVG, which had become a close partner to Live Nation, and TEG. So, in December 2021 when a TEG employee wrote to say that it did not intend to compete with Live Nation in the US, Rapino replied to Silver Lake’s management that he did not care about TEG, but still had a problem with Silver Lake’s decision to make multiple conflicting investments in the industry.

“There is no truth that this brief exchange had anything to do with Silver Lake’s decision to sell its stake in TEG.”

Elsewhere, Variety has published an article asking whether things would get better for fans in the event of a Live Nation-Ticketmaster breakup.

“In reality, music fans’ concerns boil down to one question: Would breaking up the two companies make the ticket-acquisition process less of a soul-crushing nightmare?” writes Jem Aswad. “In the short term anyway, the answer is pretty much no… In fact, the things that most enrage fans – cryptic ‘service’ fees, long wait times, the predatory secondary market and its bots that buy up blocks of tickets before ordinary humans can get near them – are outside the purview of the lawsuit.

“It also must be noted, as Live Nation often does, that Ticketmaster does not set ticket prices – artists or promoters do – and it does not charge the bulk of the service fees that so enrage fans (venues do).”

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a lawsuit which could seek to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster after alleging the company has violated antitrust laws.

The 128-page filing accuses LN and Ticketmaster, who merged in 2010, of using their “power and influence” to “insert themselves at the centre and the edges of virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem”. Live Nation’s EVP, regulatory affairs, Dan Wall has issued a response, contesting the claims.

The suit, which had been expected for several weeks, was filed today (23 May) in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. It states that Live Nation directly manages more than 400 musical artists and controls around 60% of concert promotions at major venues across the country, as well as owning or controlling more than 265 concert venues in North America.

“This has given Live Nation and Ticketmaster the opportunity to freeze innovation and bend the industry to their own benefit,” it claims. “While this may be a boon to Live Nation’s bottom line, there is a real cost to Americans.

“Through a self-reinforcing ‘flywheel’ that Live Nation-Ticketmaster created to connect their multiple interconnected businesses and interests, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have engaged in numerous forms of anticompetitive conduct.”

In adds that LN controls “roughly 80% or more” of primary ticketing for major concert venues via Ticketmaster, plus a “growing share” of the resale market.

“Live Nation’s monopoly, and the anticompetitive conduct that protects and maintains its monopoly, strikes a chord precisely because the industry at stake is one that has for generations inspired, entertained, and challenged Americans,” it continues. “Conduct that subverts competition here not only harms the structure of the live music industry and the countless people that work in that industry, but also damages the foundation of creative expression and art that lies at the heart of our personal, social, and political lives.”

“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the US”

Allegations include acquiring competitors and competitive threats, restricting artists’ access to venues, locking out competition with exclusive contracts and blocking venues from using multiple ticketing firms.

“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators,” says a statement from US attorney general Merrick Garland. “The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”

Dan Wall, LN’s EVP, corporate and regulatory affairs, has penned a lengthy response to the lawsuit, which he says comes in the wake of “intense political pressure on DOJ to file a lawsuit, and a long-term lobbying campaign from rivals and ticket brokers seeking government protection for themselves”.

Furthermore, Wall describes the claim that Live Nation and Ticketmaster are wielding monopoly power as “absurd”.

“The defining feature of a monopolist is monopoly profits derived from monopoly pricing,” he says. “Live Nation in no way fits the profile. Service charges on Ticketmaster are no higher than elsewhere, and frequently lower. And even accounting for sponsorship, an advertising business that helps keep ticket prices down, the company’s overall net profit margin is at the low end of profitable S&P 500 companies.

“Every year, competition in the industry drives Live Nation to earn lower take rates from both concert promotion and ticketing. The company is profitable and growing because it helps grow the industry, not because it has market power.”

“The world is a better place because of that merger, not a worse one”

In closing, Wall insists that Ticketmaster is “a far better, more artist and fan-focused business under Live Nation’s ownership than it ever was as a standalone company”.

“But that’s not how this DOJ sees it. They are reflexively antagonistic to vertical integration,” he says. “The Obama Administration saw it differently. It allowed Live Nation and Ticketmaster to merge, and in defending that position acknowledged that there was no legal basis for challenging the vertical aspects of the merger – specifically, allowing a large concert promoter to combine with a large ticketing company.

“In one filing, it said that it had ‘determined that it could not prove that the vertical integration resulting from the merger would significantly harm competition in the concert promotion market.’ There is no factual basis for concluding otherwise today. The world is a better place because of that merger, not a worse one.”

Live Nation president/CFO Joe Berchtold also discussed the then pending lawsuit during the company’s Q1 earnings call earlier this month.

“Based on the issues we know about, we don’t believe a breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster would be a legally permissible remedy,” he said. “Live Nation and Ticketmaster came together lawfully through a merger that the DOJ reviewed and approved subject to divestitures and other remedies. The DOJ has repeatedly stated in court filings that the merger and settlement were in the public interest.”

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) is expected to file an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation in the coming weeks, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Citing anonymous sources, the WSJ reports that the suit – which could be filed as soon as next month – would claim the Ticketmaster parent has abused its market-leading position in the ticketing business to harm competition, although specific details of the lawsuit have not been confirmed.

In response to the report, a Ticketmaster spokesperson tells the publication: “Ticketmaster has more competition today than it has ever had, and the deal terms with venues show it has nothing close to monopoly power.”

Neither Live Nation or the DoJ have commented. However, LN president/CFO Joe Berchtold addressed the DoJ’s investigation in a recent interview at the Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco.

“We’re fully giving them everything they asked for and they’ll define the timetable,” he said. “Meanwhile, we’ll continue to run a great business. Again, I’ll say it over and over, our strategy, our culture, is to super-serve the artists. I don’t think we have anything to be ashamed of with having that as a strategy.

“I think that our structural behaviour is positive for the industry. Big is bad today, but I feel very good about how we are as a company trying to operate what we’re trying to do and what our opportunities are going forward.”

“The Ticketmaster of 2010 did not face the level of competition that we face today”

Speaking during the promoter’s earnings call in February, CEO Michael Rapino said Live Nation was “100% cooperative” with investigators following reports that the US Justice Department had sent out a new raft of information requests in connection with the probe.

Four years ago, a US district court issued a judgment extending the ‘consent decree’ governing the 2010 merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster to 2025. The DoJ alleged the firm had violated provisions of the decree on multiple occasions – claims that were strenuously denied by Live Nation.

Berchtold also defended Ticketmaster’s practices when appearing before a US Senate antitrust panel in early 2023, spurred by the fallout from the presale for Taylor Swift’s stadium tour.

“We hear people say that ticketing markets are less competitive today than they were at the time of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger. That’s simply not true,” he argued. “The Ticketmaster of 2010 did not face the level of competition that we face today… Ticketmaster has lost, not gained, market share since the merger.”

While the company has come under increased scrutiny from lawmakers since the 2022 Eras Tour onsale, it is understood the DoJ inquiry predates the controversy.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.