Harvard Law School visiting professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth said on Mar. 18 that the recent settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Live Nation Entertainment does not go as far as originally sought in addressing alleged anti-competitive practices in the concert ticketing industry.
The issue is significant because it affects competition and pricing for concertgoers across the United States. The DOJ had accused Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster of dominating key areas of the live event market, which could limit consumer choice and drive up costs.
Allensworth explained that Live Nation controls three related markets: ticketing through Ticketmaster, ownership of major concert venues—especially outdoor amphitheaters—and promotion services for concerts. “The problem, from the government’s perspective, is that if you want to enter any one of these markets as a competitor, you’ll find yourself dealing with Ticketmaster or Live Nation. That puts Live Nation in a position of controlling competition at all three layers,” she said.
While the DOJ initially sought to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, last week’s settlement instead imposes some restrictions on exclusive booking arrangements and caps service fees at certain venues. However, Allensworth noted that these measures are limited in scope: “This doesn’t do a lot to protect competition. Rather, it’s like a Band Aid over the symptoms of poor competition.” She also pointed out that vertical integration allows companies like Live Nation to shift profits between different parts of their business, potentially undermining fee caps.
Thirty-six states have rejected the settlement and are continuing with their lawsuit against Live Nation. Allensworth said there remains a possibility for stronger remedies: “Yes, the states could still win and get a better outcome from consumers. The judge in this case could order a remedy that goes beyond the settlement with the DOJ, including the possibility of a breakup — the very outcome that Live Nation seems to have been trying to avoid with the settlement.”
The outcome of this ongoing litigation may set important precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to vertically integrated companies in entertainment and other industries.
