A jury is about to decide the fate of Ticketmaster

Consumer complaints about Ticketmaster are so voluminous at state attorneys general offices that Pennsylvania’s comes with an explicit plea for residents lodging a grievance about the company to be patient for a response. That kind of pressure has driven more than 30 states to push forward with claims that Live Nation-Ticketmaster illegally monopolized parts of the concert industry, even when the federal government settled its claims. Soon it will be up to a jury to decide if the ways Live Nation-Ticketmaster conducts its business is not just frustrating, but also illegal.

An antitrust trial that began March 2nd against Live Nation-Ticketmaster is coming to a close on Thursday. State AGs who pushed forward with their claims after the Justice Department settled one week in took a gamble. They were betting that they could not only win the case, but also get more relief for their constituents, and permanently change the competitive dynamics of music touring in the US, including through a potential breakup of the industry mainstay. The states argued that Live Nation-Ticketmaster maintained its monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive behavior, including leveraging its power in concert promotions and its broad control of amphitheaters across the country to coerce concert venues into using its ticketing platform, even when they preferred not to.

Live Nation pushed back on this narrative, calling on witnesses from its own staff and other industry players who testified to the quality of its services, and the fierce competition it faces. If the jury buys this argument, the DOJ’s deal may look better than its detractors initially thought. But a verdict in the states’ favor opens the potential for sweeping industry change.

The trial faced rocky moments nearly from the jump, after the DOJ’s settlement left state plaintiffs scrambling to litigate on their own. The judge accused both Live Nation and the DOJ of failing to inform him of the status of a deal early enough, and the settlement itself has drawn criticism from players in the concert industry and some of the states that are pressing forward.

It could take a matter of hours or days for the jury to reach a verdict, and a finding in the states’ favor could be the first step toward a breakup of the company. But whatever they decide will almost certainly lead to a long road of appeals.

One storyline the jury has heard throughout the trial revolves around a dispute between the ex-CEO of the Barclays Center John Abbamondi and Live Nation’s Michael Rapino. Abbamondi was the government’s first witness, questioned by the DOJ while they were still a party to the case. He described a phone call where he claimed Rapino implicitly threatened to pull concerts from the arena if it did not continue its ticketing deal with Ticketmaster. In a recording of the call played in court, Rapino drops an F-bomb and is audibly upset, saying it might be a “tough time to deliver tickets or concerts with a new competitor in town.” This was this kind of alleged threat that drove SeatGeek to offer retaliation insurance to venues it tried to win over from Ticketmaster, SeatGeek’s CEO later testified.

When Rapino took the stand, he said his frustration was aimed at a disagreement over Abbamondi’s interpretation of Barclays existing contract with Ticketmaster. He was simply conveying the reality that a new nearby arena would likely take business from Barclays. He claimed Abbamondi was “trying to trap me” by bringing up concert promotion in that discussion, Bloomberg reported, and that he expected a chance to match SeatGeek’s offer and was “caught flat footed” when he was denied one.

The states also called on a Live Nation employee Ben Baker whose internal chats with a colleague bragging about “robbing” fans “blind” with costs for things like parking were exposed during the trial. Baker, now head of ticketing for Live Nation venues, said the 2022 chats were “immature and regrettable,” Bloomberg reported. Rapino condemned the behavior and said he hadn’t been aware of it until this trial, and said he planned to “deal with” the issue that week.

The jury also heard from the CEO of Oak View Group, a venue management company that had a deal with Ticketmaster that incentivized it to steer venues to use the ticketing platform. In a separate case, OVG’s previous CEO, Tim Leiweke, was accused by the DOJ of bid-rigging, which led his company to sign a non-prosecution agreement last year acknowledging the arrangement understood to be with Ticketmaster. (Leiweke was later pardoned by President Donald Trump). On the stand in the monopolization case, current OVG CEO Chris Granger testified that he didn’t know why OVG didn’t disclose the Ticketmaster deal to clients, but that “we should have,” Law360 reported. Even so, he maintained that Ticketmaster is a superior platform to competitors like SeatGeek and AXS.

The states’ economic expert Rosa Abrantes-Metz testified that Ticketmaster keeps, on average, an extra $2.30 for every ticket sold, according to Courthouse News Service, compared to a competitor. Most of that is paid by concertgoers, she said. Her testimony turned into a legal flashpoint when Live Nation accused Abrantes-Metz of committing perjury by saying she relied on the way Ticketmaster internally calculates the portion of a ticket price that it keeps in determining her damages calculations. The company said this is false and moved to strike her testimony, saying that her analysis falls apart without the alleged lie. Judge Arun Subramanian said he’d reserve judgement on her testimony, suggesting it seemed to be more of a misunderstanding, rather than perjury, according to Inner City Press.

After the states rested their case, Live Nation got a chance to call up its own witnesses to complicate the narrative. Witnesses testifying in its defense said that Ticketmaster offers the superior product on the market, and that battles to promote artists and win venues are hard-fought on the merits. Drake’s manager Adel Nur raved about Live Nation, saying they had the “most fair relationship,” with the promoter who would go “above and beyond to service him,” with multimillion dollar bonuses according to CNS.

Live Nation has to compete intensely to win over artists to promote their concerts, executives argued. The company’s president of touring Omar Al-joulani told the jury that Live Nation has lost out on big names like Morgan Wallen and Bruce Springsteen. “I can’t stress telling you how competitive the business is,” he said, according to CNS. Similarly, when concert venues choose a ticketing platform, Rapino testified, those venues make the ultimate decisions, including on things like exclusivity arrangements. “I don’t tell the billionaire what to do with his venue. He tells me,” Rapino testified, according to Bloomberg, apparently referring to venue owners.

Ticketmaster’s vice president of commercial strategy Jennifer Johnson testified that it’s often clients who want to lock in exclusive deals for longer periods, and that such an arrangement actually presents more risk for Ticketmaster, Big Tech on Trial reported. Jurors have heard from other witnesses that venues may like exclusive contracts for a sense of stability and continuity. Late in the trial, the plaintiffs actually moved to voluntarily dismiss their own claim of unlawful exclusive dealing against Live Nation. On cross-examination, Johnson acknowledged that until at least 2024, sales representatives were incentivized with bonuses to renew venue contracts and extend their terms.

Jurors also got to hear another side of the Barclays Center story from the arena’s chief entertainment officer Laurie Jacoby. Things weren’t going smoothly at the Barclays Center before the arena decided to switch back from SeatGeek to Ticketmaster, Jacoby testified. There were problems when tickets went on sale for The Strokes and My Chemical Romance, she said, according to Inner City Press. That made it difficult to attract artists, which is why they switched back, she said. Other venue executives also described Ticketmaster as a superior choice to competitors on the merits, and Live Nation’s economic expert argued there’s no evidence it’s exercised monopoly power.

Finally, there was yet another conflict between the states and Live Nation over one defense witness who had returned to Live Nation after leaving competitor AEG. Live Nation accused the states of “improperly attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying and/or influence his testimony,” after obtaining information about his departure from AEG. Live Nation asked the judge to sanction the states as a result, which the states charged was an unwarranted attempt at “sweeping, prejudicial relief.” Subramanian partially denied the sanctions request, but reserved judgement on the rest, ordering AEG to explain why he shouldn’t make them pay monetary sanctions for disclosing the witness’ personnel information.

Still, this and other skirmishes took place outside of the jury’s earshot, so it won’t directly factor into their decision. Their determination of whether Live Nation is an illegal monopoly could come down to what they view as a threat or standard business talk. If Live Nation wins, the DOJ’s settlement may look more appealing to opponents. But a finding in the states’ favor could potentially lead to a breakup.