Jury Finds Live Nation and Ticketmaster Liable of Monopolizing the Ticketing Market — What Companies Need to Know
By: Mark I. Pinkert, Brandon J. Smith, and M. Logan Blake
A federal jury in Manhattan returned a landmark verdict finding Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster liable for illegally maintaining monopoly power in the live event ticketing market.[1] The jury reached its decision after a six-week trial and four days of deliberations.[2] The verdict marks one of the most significant antitrust cases in years, and it underscores the growing power of multistate enforcement actions led by states attorneys general. Further, it shows that companies may now have to navigate enforcement actions where federal and state enforcement agencies have diverging strategies and end goals for the same underlying conduct.
In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice and dozens of states sued Live Nation, alleging that it used its control over concert promotion, artist management, venue operations, and ticketing services to shut competitors out of the live events market.[3] The government plaintiffs contended that Ticketmaster controlled roughly 80% of primary concert ticketing in the U.S., a figure that grew to 86% of the major venue market by the time the case went to trial.[4]
In early March, just one week into the trial, the DOJ reached a $280 million settlement with Live Nation. That deal required limited fee caps, modest changes to exclusive ticketing arrangements, and the sale of some amphitheaters.[5] However, 33 states and the District of Columbia declined to join the settlement and pressed forward on their own.
The state plaintiffs were successful. The jury found that Live Nation and Ticketmaster violated federal and state antitrust laws by illegally maintaining monopoly power in the ticketing market. The jury determined that Ticketmaster overcharged concertgoers by $1.72 per ticket across 22 states, that the company coerced venues into exclusive arrangements, and that fans, artists, and venues all suffered as a result.[6]
Live Nation's defense team argued throughout the trial that being the biggest player in an industry is not illegal.[7] But the jury's verdict was not about size. It was about conduct. Live Nation maintained its monopoly through exclusive arrangements that coerced partners, fee structures that harmed consumers, and practices designed to exclude rivals. This distinction between size and conduct matters for any company operating at scale.
The case now moves to a remedies phase where the judge could order Live Nation to pay hundreds of millions in damages, divest concert venues, or even separate Ticketmaster entirely.
This verdict says more about the role of state attorneys general and their relationship to the federal government than it does about Live Nation. When the federal government settled, 33 states and D.C. chose a different path. They built a case, tried it before a jury, and won. It signals clearly that state attorneys general are willing and able to pursue major antitrust enforcement when federal regulators step back or otherwise have different goals in enforcement proceedings. This lesson is applicable far beyond the entertainment industry.
Exclusive contractual arrangements, pricing conduct that harms consumers, and strategies that foreclose competition in concentrated markets are areas of active state scrutiny across all industries. There is also the question of remedies. Beyond financial penalties, courts can order structural relief such as divestitures, forced separations and operational restrictions. For companies in other industries facing multistate enforcement, that possibility is worth taking seriously.
Live Nation has announced it will renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law and “will appeal any unfavorable ruling[].”[8] But whatever the final outcome after a remedies phase and appeals, the Live Nation verdict is reshaping how companies, regulators, and courts evaluate dominant market positions and the conduct used to maintain them. Multi-state antitrust enforcement in tech, healthcare, financial services, and other concentrated industries is already underway. This result strengthens the hands of state AGs pursuing those cases.
Holtzman Vogel's State Attorneys General practice group works with companies navigating multistate regulatory and enforcement activity. For questions about antitrust exposure or AG enforcement trends, please contact us.
[1] Verdict Form, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS, ECF 1417.
[2] Bryan Koenig, AG’s Win Over Live Nation Leaves DOJ Watching From The Side, Law360 (April 16, 2026) https://www.law360.com/articles/2465948/print?section=competition.
[3] Complaint, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS, ECF 4.
[4] Complaint at 63; Larry Neumeister et al, Jury Finds that Ticketmaster and Live Nation had an anticompetitive monopoly over big concert venues, AP News (April 15, 2026) https://apnews.com/article/live-nation-ticketmaster-antitrust-trial-f0ffdd20dd4f64e8b4bb9d97134b826f.
[5] Notice of Settlement, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-03973-AS, ECF 1171.
[6] Verdict Form
[7] Jon Blistein, ‘Monopolistic Bully’ or ‘Fierce Competitor’? Live Nation Trial Ends With Closing Argument, Rolling Stone (April 9, 2026) https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/live-nation-trial-closing-arguments-1235543669/.
[8] Statement from Live Nation Entertainment, Live Nation Newsroom (April 15, 2026) https://newsroom.livenation.com/statements/statement-from-live-nation-entertainment/.
