By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Manhattan federal jury has found that concert giant Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary engaged in a harmful monopoly over live event venues. This decision, reached after four days of deliberation, concluded a lawsuit brought by dozens of U.S. states. The verdict could result in significant financial penalties for the companies, potentially reaching hundreds of millions of dollars due to overcharging consumers. Furthermore, sanctions could compel Live Nation to divest certain assets, including venues they own.
Read the original article here
It’s official: a jury has determined that Ticketmaster and Live Nation have been running an anticompetitive monopoly over big concert venues. This verdict, while long overdue for many, confirms what countless fans have suspected and experienced for years. The sheer length of time it took for this ruling to come about is, frankly, astonishing, especially when considering the internal communications that have surfaced, painting a picture of executives openly discussing “robbing the fans blind” and acknowledging that prices were “outrageous” while calling customers “so stupid.” It’s almost as if the wheels of justice grind exceptionally slowly when facing such entrenched power.
The implications of this jury’s finding are significant, though the immediate impact on consumers remains a pressing question. Many are understandably skeptical, fearing that any penalties will simply be absorbed through additional fees or passed on to the next generation of concertgoers. The history of such legal battles often involves fines that feel like a mere slap on the wrist compared to the immense profits generated through what is now officially deemed anticompetitive behavior. The worry is that this will devolve into a situation where the system is declared “fixed” while the underlying issues remain, leading to new, creatively named fees to offset any financial repercussions.
This case essentially confirms that Ticketmaster and Live Nation, through their consolidation of power, have operated much like an old-school trust or cartel. The sheer scale of their dominance is staggering; they don’t just control ticket sales, but often own the venues themselves, control concessions, take a cut of merchandise sales, and even profit from the resale market through platforms like StubHub. This creates a closed ecosystem where artists and fans have little leverage, and the companies involved reap benefits at every turn. The idea of buying tickets directly from a box office to avoid fees is becoming a relic of the past, as even in-person purchases are now often subject to the same Ticketmaster surcharges.
The consensus among many is that this verdict is a long time coming, with some recalling that the issues were apparent as far back as the 1990s, if not earlier. There’s a palpable sense of “well, duh” surrounding the news, as the anticompetitive nature of the companies has been an open secret for decades. This is in stark contrast to historical precedents, like the breakup of AT&T, where the government took action against a single dominant entity. Today, the landscape is littered with giants across various industries – tech, media, and e-commerce – who have amassed similar levels of market control, raising questions about whether this will be an isolated victory or the start of a broader reckoning.
However, amidst the vindication, there’s a pervasive cynicism about the actual outcome for consumers. Many believe that simply declaring them guilty is not enough, and that without a fundamental structural change, such as breaking up the monopoly, nothing truly meaningful will change. The fear is that politicians will prioritize their own interests over consumer welfare, potentially exchanging favorable treatment for campaign contributions, thus perpetuating the existing power imbalance. The focus, for many, needs to be on dismantling the monopoly, not just issuing fines that can be easily recouped.
The details of the jury’s findings, particularly the accusation of overcharging consumers by a specific amount per ticket, highlight the granular nature of the alleged exploitation. Yet, for those who have been paying exorbitant fees on top of already high ticket prices, a per-ticket overcharge figure that feels marginal may not fully capture the extent of the financial damage. The hope is that the penalties will truly impact the companies’ ability to exploit the market, rather than simply adding another line item to their extensive revenue streams. The question remains: will this verdict lead to a substantial shift in how concerts are booked and tickets are sold, or will it result in a hollow victory with business as usual?