The most significant music-industry trial in recent history was abruptly cut short Monday when Live Nation announced that it had settled its antitrust case with the Department of Justice. The news came just one week into the blockbuster trial, catching numerous parties off guard, including the judge overseeing the case and even one of the government’s own lead prosecutors.
The tentative deal will force Live Nation and Ticketmaster to make several changes to their business model, which could open up avenues for more competition in the live-entertainment space. But many remain sceptical of the settlement terms, including politicians, independent trade groups, and even some of the companies that ostensibly stand to benefit from these concessions. And many of Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s fiercest critics maintain that the settlement falls far short of what they say is truly necessary: A break-up of the behemoth that dominates the worlds of ticketing, venues, and promotions.
But rather than put a pin in this saga, the deal throws the case into a new phase. The settlement still needs judicial approval, and even if Live Nation’s dispute with the federal government gets resolved, individual states could still take the company to court. Here’s the complete guide to everything that’s happening and could happen.
So is this whole thing over yet?
Definitely not.
OK, then what’s next?
Well, along with needing judicial approval, Live Nation also needs to see if it can reach an agreement with all of the federal government’s co-plaintiffs: Attorneys general from nearly 40 states, plus Washington, D.C., who signed on to the suit when it was filed in 2024.
Love Music?
Get your daily dose of everything happening in Australian/New Zealand music and globally.
Many of those AGs have already stated they are not pleased with the proposed settlement. New York’s Letitia James, for instance, said it “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers.”
James, along with 27 other AGs, have indicated their intention to continue the fight at the state level. California’s AG, Rob Bonta, said in a statement, “Just in the first week of trial, we’ve already heard that Live Nation fully intended to take advantage of fans — and were able to do so because fans had no other place to go. Live Nation has manipulated the market, made itself untouchable by any competitor, and raked in the cash — not because it is better, but because it has acted illegally and created a monopoly.”
Many of these states also filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing that the arrival of the settlement mid-trial “materially and irreparably prejudiced” the states before the jury, and also jeopardized their “access to experts, witnesses, trial exhibits,” and more.
Will the state cases head to trial quickly?
The speed at which the American justice system moves suggests not, but it’s also technically possible they might not reach court at all. At a hearing on Tuesday, March 10, Judge Arun Subramanian said the court would reserve judgment on the motion for a mistrial and ordered the hold-out states to get back to the negotiating table with Live Nation and see if a deal can be reached this week.
Which states have already signed on to the settlement agreement and what will they get?
So far, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota have indicated they intend to settle under the terms of the DOJ deal (according to Monday’s mistrial filing). “We support the terms of the settlement and welcome this resolution,” Jeff LeMaster, communications director for Arkansas AG Tim Griffin tells Rolling Stone via email.
Those terms will be discussed in more detail below, but one thing the states will get is some money. The DOJ settlement doesn’t include a financial penalty, but Live Nation announced Monday that it had created a $280 million fund to be distributed to states that sign on to the settlement.
So about that deal …
The term sheet submitted Monday, signed by Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and the DOJ’s acting antitrust head Omeed A. Assefi, includes 13 bullet points and covers everything from changes in ticketing to Live Nation’s vast network of amphitheatres.
Let’s start with tickets.
Arguably, the most significant concessions have to do with ticketing. To start, Ticketmaster has agreed to let rival companies like SeatGeek and Eventbrite list tickets on its platforms. Ticketmaster will also start capping its exclusivity contracts with venues at four years, and has agreed to offer concert venues the opportunity to choose either exclusive or non-exclusive arrangements. The latter giving venues the chance to allot a portion of their primary tickets to other sellers.
These changes appear to address concerns stemming from one of the DOJ’s two key claims: That Live Nation pressured venues to sign long-term contracts with Ticketmaster, as opposed to other ticketing services, in part by threatening to withhold concerts. One of the few witnesses the jury heard from last week was John Abbamondi, former chief executive at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, who claimed the number of Live Nation shows there dropped from 22 to eight after the venue signed a deal with SeatGeek in 2021.
As one alleged example, Abbamondi said Billie Eilish was supposed to play Barclays and Madison Square Garden before her 2020 tour was canceled because of Covid-19; when Eilish returned in 2022, her New York stops were MSG and the UBS Arena on Long Island. Abbamondi claimed that Live Nation told him Eilish and her team had made the choice, though the former executive claimed one of Eilish’s managers told a Barclays employee that Live Nation had made the decision. (Live Nation’s lawyers objected to this as hearsay, and the judge ordered the jury to disregard it.)
Wait, haven’t Live Nation and Ticketmaster been warned against this kind of alleged retaliation before?
They sure have. When the companies merged in 2010, the DOJ instituted a “consent decree” that was meant to prevent Live Nation from retaliating against venues that used other ticketing companies. In 2018, the DOJ investigated retaliation allegations made by several venues; a settlement was reached in 2020 with Live Nation agreeing to extend the consent decree to 2025. The new proposed settlement extends it for another eight years.
How will it be different this time?
The term sheet states that the language of the consent decree will “be revised to further clarify” that Live Nation can’t retaliate against venues that don’t work with Ticketmaster or steer shows to venues that use another primary ticket seller.
So, is it really that different?
Sure, the language will have been revised to further clarify what’s ostensibly been on the books for more than 15 years. And Live Nation has agreed to what are described as “robust provisions to facilitate enforcement,” including the appointment of a trustee to oversee things like anti-retaliation, non-interference, non-circumvention, and divestiture. There will also still be a monitor tasked with overseeing Live Nation’s activities and submitting quarterly reports to the DOJ and State Executive Committee. Any violations will come with a $5 million penalty, with the possibility for further relief if there are repeated violations. (Worth noting, Live Nation’s 2025 revenue was $25.2 billion.)
OK, moving on: What about those really high Ticketmaster fees? Does the deal do anything about those?
Kinda. Ticketmaster has agreed to cap service fees at 15 percent — but only at amphitheaters that Live Nation owns, operates, or controls.
There’s a lot in here about amphitheaters. What’s that about?
Amphitheaters are a huge part of Live Nation’s business, with the company owning about 150 across the country. The other key claim in the DOJ’s original suit was that Live Nation illegally “ties” access to its amphitheaters to its promotion services. Meaning, any artist that wanted to play a LN-owned amphitheater also had to use the company as a promoter.
Do they have to stop doing that now?
Live Nation has agreed to open up its amphitheaters. Artists will now be allowed to play a Live Nation amphitheater and choose their own promoter, while promoters will also be able to allocate 50 percent of tickets to their preferred retailer.
I saw something about Live Nation being forced to sell a bunch of amphitheaters. Is that true?
No, though there was some confusion about this when reports on the deal first emerged Monday morning. During a background call with reporters, a senior justice department official said that Live Nation would be selling 13 different amphitheaters — and possibly more — further clarifying that there would be 13 assets available. Meanwhile, the deal sheet submitted to the court stated: “Live Nation will divest ownership and/or control of the concert venues identified in Appendix A.”
Turns out there was no ownership to divest from as Live Nation doesn’t actually own any of the 13 amphitheaters listed in Appendix A. Instead, the company has agreed to divest from its exclusive booking arrangements with those venues, which will allow other promoters to book shows at them.
Still, that’s not nothing. And I bet the government forced their hand on some major amphitheaters, too.
Uhhh. The list certainly does include some big venues, like the 23,000-capacity American Family Insurance Amphitheater in Milwaukee; the 16,500-cap Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion outside Houston; and the 14,000-cap Germania Insurance Amphitheater in Austin. But most are in smaller or more far-flung markets like Clarkston, Michigan; Brandon, Mississippi; Bethel, New York; Rogers, Arkansas; Bangor, Maine; Nampa, Idaho; and Orange Beach, Alabama.
Sharing a screen grab of the list on X, the nonprofit advocacy group Future of Music Coalition, commented, “Explain how this gets us to a competitive marketplace?”
Anything else from the deal worth mentioning?
There’s language in the settlement about providing artists with more information on ticket purchasers for their shows, if they request (and also “subject to standard privacy protection”). And for the real industry heads, one bullet point deals with Live Nation’s relationship with Oak View Group, a venue development company co-founded by music manager and former LN chairman Irving Azoff.
The original complaint accused LN and OVG of colluding to avoid competition with each other and “chart a mutually beneficial plan to cement Live Nation’s dominance.” The complaint event went so far as to claim that Oak View “operates as an agent and self-described ‘pimp’ and ‘hammer’ for Live Nation, often influencing venues and artists for the benefit of Live Nation.” (The company did not reply to Rolling Stone‘s earlier request for comment.)
Live Nation will now have to terminate its 2022 preferred-ticketing contract with OVG, and it’s prohibited from entering into any similar agreements with Oak View or any venue agent who’s rewarded “for converting any ticketing contracts to Ticketmaster.”
A lot of people seem mad about this deal. What are they most mad about?
Despite the part of the deal that forces Ticketmaster to let other primary ticket sellers onto their platform, SeatGeek’s general counsel called the settlement “incredibly disappointing news for all live-event fans,” and said it “does little to change” the live-entertainment marketplace. He added, “Meaningful reform requires deep structural changes, not more of the surface-level consolations that have failed for the last 16 years. We applaud the dozens of state AGs who are continuing to bring this case forward on behalf of the tens of millions of fans who view Live Nation-Ticketmaster as a harmful monopoly.”
Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, called out Live Nation’s settlement fund — $280 million “is the equivalent of four days of their 2025 revenue” — and added, “The reported settlement does not appear to include any specific and explicit protections for fans, artists, or independent venues and festivals.”
Speaking with Rolling Stone Monday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar stated her belief that any deal that stopped short of breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster wasn’t enough. “Every time a Justice Department or an administration has done something like this, [the company has] gotten around it and grown even bigger,” Klobuchar says. “The only way to see a future for competition in ticketing, venues, and promotion would be breaking them up.”
From Rolling Stone US
