Live Nation and Ticketmaster were found liable for monopolizing parts of the live entertainment market on Wednesday, after a panel of jurors concluded that concertgoers were overcharged a whopping $1.72 per ticket at certain venues.
Live Nation, a venue operator and concert promoter, acquired Ticketmaster, which facilitates primary and secondary ticket sales, in 2010. In 2024, Live Nation was sued by the Justice Department, states, and the District of Columbia for allegedly monopolizing primary ticketing services, concert venues, and promotional services. (The motivation for the suit was misdirected public outrage over resale ticket prices to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour exceeding $2,000, whose sale Ticketmaster did not facilitate.)
In March, Live Nation settled with some of the plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, by setting aside a combined $18.6 million for these states and accepting structural remedies.
The District of Columbia and 33 states, however, rejected these terms and continued the case against Live Nation, leading to the Wednesday verdict, which found that Live Nation had monopolized large amphitheaters and tied artists’ use of these spaces to use of Live Nation’s promotional services. Since Live Nation owns 78 percent of large amphitheaters in the United States, it is hard to avoid Live Nation venues on a major summer tour. But “‘hard to avoid’ isn’t the same as ‘formally conditioned,'” says Brian Albrecht, chief economist at the International Center for Law and Economics.
Ticketmaster, a subsidiary of Live Nation, was found liable for monopolizing primary ticketing services to major concert venues by facilitating 86 percent of ticketing for these venues, 70 percent of which are controlled by its parent company. The ruling was made despite the number of primary ticketing services (such as AXS and SeatGeek) increasing since Live Nation purchased Ticketmaster, showing that Ticketmaster has not prevented new companies from entering the market.
Still, the existence of competitors does not necessarily imply robust competition. For example, if one firm offers a platform that is far and away superior to the alternatives, it might be able to exercise some degree of pricing power. Case in point, Mitch Helgerson, chief revenue officer of the Minnesota Wild NHL team, testified that SeatGeek had significantly less experience than Ticketmaster in handling high-demand on-sales for concerts and had a long way to go to build up its credibility.
Accordingly, Albrecht says we need to examine Ticketmaster’s actions, rather than the number of competitors it may or may not have, to determine if it is a monopolist.
One action cited at trial was Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino telling then–Barclays Center CEO John Abbamondi that if the venue chose another ticketing platform, he would have a hard time delivering tickets without Ticketmaster. (Live Nation’s consent decree with the Justice Department “expressly prohibited [Live Nation] from retaliating against any venue that considers or works with another primary ticketing service.”)
Albrecht tells Reason that shows promoted by Live Nation at the Barclays Center dropped from 23 to 14 when the venue switched from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek in 2021. Then, when Barclays switched back in 2023, this figure increased to 28, and then 34 one year later.
While this evidence could indicate anticompetitive conduct, it could just as easily be explained by efficiency gains from vertical integration.
Albrecht explains that “integrated firms have real reasons to prefer their own downstream systems — shared fan data, unified [customer relationship management system], faster settlement.” Because of this infrastructure, it is cheaper for Live Nation to route “a show into a Ticketmaster-ticketed venue…than rebuilding all of that for SeatGeek each time.”
If Ticketmaster had successfully monopolized ticketing for the major concert venue market, the company should have higher profit margins in this market.
Economist Dennis Carlton testified that Ticketmaster’s gross profit margin is 3.2 percentage points lower within the major concert venue market than outside of it. If Ticketmaster were extracting rents from fans—that is, behaving like a monopolist—its “inside-market margins should be higher than outside,” explains Albrecht. Economist Nicholas Hill, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, affirmed that he did not offer “any evidence of [major concert venues]…being charged monopoly prices” by Ticketmaster.
Regardless, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have been found liable on all counts; the question is not whether they’ll be punished, but how severely. If the companies are broken up, consumers should not expect their live entertainment experiences to become significantly cheaper, but to involve more hassle.
