Live Nation Entertainment, the events giant that operates Ticketmaster, is fighting to hold on to practices that states and the federal government allege are anti-competitive and hurt both fans and musicians.
The company recently lost its bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general. The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation runs a monopoly that most recently came under fire during Taylor Swift’s Eras tour as fans struggled to get limited tickets to fast-selling shows.
District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the federal action, ruling the DOJ could proceed with its case.
“These allegations aren’t just about a refusal to deal with rival promotors,” Subramanian wrote in his ruling. “They are about the coercion of artists.”
Live Nation is also working on multiple fronts at the state level. More than 25 states and Puerto Rico debated more than 75 bills on ticket sales during 2023 legislative sessions after the fallout from Swift’s mega-tour, according to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In the wake of the Eras collapse, Arkansas stopped local governments from banning the sale or resale of a ticket at any price; Maine required resellers to refund customers in some circumstances; and Oklahoma prohibited the use of software to bypass controls on a ticket seller’s website, according to the NCL report. In 2016, Congress passed similar legislation banning the use of bots on ticket websites.
In Massachusetts, Live Nation spent $120,000 lobbying lawmakers to pass the Mass Leads Act, a $4 billion economic development measure that ran 319 pages, according to The Verge. Despite opposition from consumer groups, it also allows ticket sellers to restrict the transferability of the tickets they sell, meaning a buyer could be limited to reselling on the seller’s platform.
The Chamber of Progress, a tech industry trade group, asked the governor to amend the bill, concerned that Live Nation could use ticket terms to force buyers to resell tickets exclusively on their own platform, “further entrenching their monopoly position in the live events ecosystem,” according to a letter from the group.
The Chamber of Progress also opposed a bill in New Mexico to cap resale prices. The group said in a letter that price caps were arbitrary and ineffective.
Diana Moss, of the Progressive Policy Institute, said Live Nation is “pursuing an aggressive state-level campaign to push for laws that effectively regulate the resale market while [the company] continues to operate, unfettered, in the primary market.”
Live Nation has defended its practices. Dan Wall, executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs at Live Nation Entertainment, wrote in a blog post that the company isn’t a monopoly and doesn’t reap monopolistic profits.
“The defining feature of a monopolist is monopoly profits derived from monopoly pricing. Live Nation in no way fits the profile,” Wall wrote. “Service charges on Ticketmaster are no higher than on SeatGeek, AXS, or other primary ticketing sites, and are frequently lower. In fact, when Ticketmaster loses a venue to SeatGeek, service charges usually go up substantially. And even accounting for sponsorship, an advertising business that helps keep ticket prices down, Live Nation’s overall net profit margin is at the low end of profitable S&P 500 companies.”
