DOJ and State Attorneys General Sue Live NationTicketmaster: What It Means for the Live Music Industry

- On May 23, the U.S. Justice Department, joined by 30 state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses Live NationTicketmaster of monopolizing the live concert industry in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint outlines several alleged anticompetitive practices, including leveraging relationships with potential competitors, retaliating against venues that work with rivals, using exclusionary contracts, restricting artists’ access to venues, and acquiring smaller competitors.

These tactics, according to the DOJ, have resulted in higher ticket prices, less innovation, and significant harm to fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venues.

The lawsuit aims to dismantle Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly, which the DOJ argues is detrimental to the live music industry. Live Nation Entertainment, based in Beverly Hills, California, is the world’s largest live entertainment company, controlling over 265 concert venues in North America and generating more than $22 billion in annual global revenue. This case marks a significant effort by the Justice Department to restore competition in the live music sector for the benefit of consumers and artists.

Sync Beat Magazine’s Billy AldeaMartinez interviewed industry expert David Arditi to discuss the potential impacts of this lawsuit on the live music industry.

Short-term Impacts

- Arditi points out that the DOJ’s described tactics are classic monopolistic strategies intended to eliminate competition and dominate markets. The immediate impact of the lawsuit could include increased scrutiny on Live Nation’s practices and a potential shift in how venues and artists interact with the company. Currently, Live Nation’s dominance forces many artists and venues to comply with their demands, reducing competition and limiting market options.

Long-term Impacts

- Arditi suggests that the longterm effects of Live Nation’s monopoly have been evident since the DOJ approved the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger in 2010. Without significant changes, the monopolistic nature of the industry will likely persist. However, the lawsuit may result in some changes, but the deeply entrenched monopoly is unlikely to be fully dismantled.

Scrutiny and Legal Actions: Beneficial or Detrimental?

- Arditi believes that while scrutiny might pressure Live Nation to moderate some practices, these actions often serve as tactics to avoid breaking up the monopoly. The recent controversies, such as the Taylor Swift ticketing debacle, highlight the issues but also obscure the deeper problems. The fundamental issue is not just Ticketmaster fees but the broader market dynamics that restrict competition.

Common Monopolistic Practices

- The tactics alleged against Live Nation are common among monopolistic companies. Arditi notes similar behaviors in other parts of the music industry, such as major record labels using contracts to prevent artists from signing with competitors. These practices are pervasive and highlight the anticompetitive behavior across the industry.

Steps Toward a More Equitable Industry

- Arditi emphasizes the need for significant changes to achieve a more equitable and competitive live music industry. Key steps include promoting publiclyowned or non-profit venues and encouraging venues to handle their own ticketing. Increased regulatory oversight is also necessary to prevent anticompetitive practices.

Observations by Other Major Industry Players

- Other major players in the music industry, such as Spotify and YouTube, are likely observing this case closely. While the outcomes may influence their strategies, the industry’s history suggests that large corporations will continue to engage in anticompetitive practices due to the significant rewards involved. Arditi points out that larger corporations often invest heavily in lobbying to avoid accountability and maintain their market positions.

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Live Nation brings to light significant anticompetitive practices that have plagued the live music industry. While the short-term impacts may include increased scrutiny and potential shifts in practices, achieving long-term changes requires substantial industry-wide reforms. The case represents a critical effort to restore competition and create a more equitable environment for artists, fans, and smaller industry players.

About David Arditi

- David Arditi is a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Arlington where he serves as the director of the Center for Theory.

He was a gigging drummer for a decade before he began researching the music industry. His research is at the intersection of music, culture, and technology.

Conclusion

His newest book is Digital Feudalism: Creators, Credit, Consumption, and Capitalism. David’s other books include Streaming Culture: Subscription Platforms and the Unending Consumption, Getting Signed: Record Contracts, Musicians and Power in Society, and iTakeOver: The Recording Industry in the Streaming Era. He also serves as Editor of Fast Capitalism.