Potential settlement in Live Nation/Ticketmaster case
But a coalition of states oppose the settlement and say they will continue to fight it
The Justice Department says it has reached a tentative settlement of its antitrust litigation against Live Nation, the concert giant that includes Ticketmaster, but a coalition of state attorneys general is arguing that the deal “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case.”
The settlement announcement came just a week into the high-profile trial that examined competition in the music industry.
Under the deal, Live Nation agreed to change how it makes ticketing deals with venues, allowing them to use multiple vendors to sell tickets to fans, rather than work with Ticketmaster exclusively, according to three people familiar with details of the agreement, according to The New York Times. In addition, the company would reportedly allow touring artists to use other promoters when performing in its amphitheaters.
But New York Attorney General Letitia James said the proposed settlement doesn’t go far enough to stop Live Nation/Ticketmaster from illegally monopolizing the live entertainment industry:
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows. My office has led a bipartisan group of attorneys general in suing Live Nation for taking advantage of fans, venues, and artists, and we are committed to holding Live Nation accountable, James said in a news release.
She said the settlement “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers. We cannot agree to it.”
“My attorney general colleagues and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry,” James said. “We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”
Payments and other considerations
Under the tentative agreement, Live Nation would reportedly pay up to $280 million in damages to be split among the states that join the settlement.
In its suit, the Justice Department had accused Live Nation of operating an illegal monopoly that reaches into nearly every aspect of the multibillion-dollar concert business. It said the company stifles competition, pressures artists and venues into using its services and drives up ticket prices for millions of fans.
The suit had sought to break up the company by forcing it to divest Ticketmaster, whose merger with Live Nation had been allowed by the Justice Department in 2010.
James heads a coalition of state attorneys general who are challenging the settlement. They include the AGs of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.
Some of those attorneys said they would ask for a retrial when they heard the details of the proposal.
Judge not happy
The judge hearing the case isn’t happy either. When told that the lawyers for both sides had signed a term sheet, Judge Arun Subramanian said that there had been no discussion of an agreement in the last court appearance.
“It shows absolute disrespect for the court, the jury and this entire process,” Judge Subramanian said, according to the Times. “It is absolutely unacceptable.”
What would consumers get?
The settlement would provide that Live Nation’s concert venues would be available for other promoters to book, and those promoters could decide how to distribute and sell up to half of the tickets.
Service fees would be capped at 15% of face value.
Live Nation would divest 13 exclusive booking agreements with amphitheaters nationwide.
Ticketmaster, which Live Nation acquired in 2010, would offer both exclusive and non-exclusive ticketing proposals to major venues, which could also choose to distribute a portion of tickets through other primary marketplaces.