By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Manhattan jury has found Live Nation-Ticketmaster illegally monopolized the live event ticketing market, amphitheaters, and illegally tied its concert promotions business with venue usage. This verdict, which concluded a six-week trial, exposes the company to a potential breakup, a primary goal of the Biden administration’s Department of Justice lawsuit. While the judge will determine final damages and potential remedies, this outcome significantly surpasses the settlement reached by the Trump administration’s DOJ. The trial featured testimony from executives, artists, and rivals, with states arguing Live Nation used coercive tactics to ensure venue and ticketing exclusivity.
Read the original article here
The news that a jury has ruled Ticketmaster to be an illegal monopoly is, for many, a long overdue vindication. It feels like a collective sigh of relief that a system many have felt exploited them for decades might finally face some accountability. The sentiment is that this shouldn’t have taken so long, with many questioning where this jury was twenty-five years ago, at the height of some of the most egregious practices.
The defendant’s case, in the eyes of those observing this development, seemed to unravel quite spectacularly. It’s been noted that when Ticketmaster attempted to argue for a change of venue, they were seemingly unable to name a location that wasn’t already under their significant influence, which speaks volumes about the extent of their market control. This move, or rather the inability to find a neutral ground, really highlights the very monopoly that the jury has now recognized.
It’s almost comical, in a grim sort of way, that Ticketmaster even declined to comment without a processing fee. This reaction perfectly encapsulates the very issues at the heart of the ruling – a company seemingly designed to extract every last penny through exorbitant fees and a lack of competition. The idea of paying a fee just to get a statement on a legal decision against you is almost a perfect metaphor for their business model.
The question on everyone’s lips, beyond the initial “finally,” is what happens next. How many decades did it take to reach this point, and how many more will pass with appeals and legal maneuvering before any meaningful change actually occurs? There’s a deep-seated skepticism that the ruling, even if upheld, will be significantly diluted by the time it filters through the appeals process.
The immediate desire from many is not just to see Ticketmaster regulated but to see them broken up, a sentiment that has echoed for years. The hope is for a future where fees are capped, and the money overpaid in seemingly useless charges is returned to consumers. There’s a palpable frustration with the company, with many feeling that they’ve been taken advantage of for far too long.
The existence of laws against monopolies in American capitalism is a concept that seems to have been conveniently forgotten or ignored by some entities, and Ticketmaster is a prime example. The current structure of capitalism, as perceived by many, has allowed such practices to flourish, leading to situations where essential services, like attending a concert, become prohibitively expensive not just due to ticket prices but also the stacked fees.
For many, the decision to not attend concerts is directly linked to a refusal to “feed” companies like Ticketmaster, or Live Nation as it’s often referred to in these discussions. The perception is that these companies have become predatory, making the experience of live entertainment less accessible and more financially burdensome than it needs to be. The realization by a jury that this is indeed a monopoly is seen as a long-overdue acknowledgment of a reality many have been living with for years.
The echo of past complaints is deafening. The sentiment is that “who would have known” is a question only truly posed by those who haven’t paid attention to the fan’s outcry for decades. Artists like Pearl Jam were notably vocal about these issues years ago, and this verdict feels like a powerful validation of their long-held stance against what they perceived as unfair practices.
There’s a cynical, yet understandable, prediction that this monumental ruling might result in a slap on the wrist – perhaps a fine so insignificant it’s laughable, followed by a declaration of innocence. The fear is that the outcome will be so diluted that it will ultimately have no real impact, making the decades-long struggle feel almost in vain.
The prospect of a company like Ticketmaster being broken up so they can “work in unison” or “not compete” is a phrase that perfectly captures the irony of the situation. It highlights the perverse logic that seems to guide such monopolies. The vindication of artists like Pearl Jam, once again, is a recurring theme, underscoring the long history of this struggle.
The concept of water being wet or fire being hot is a common analogy used to express the obviousness of Ticketmaster’s monopolistic practices. It’s a sentiment that this ruling should have been evident to everyone paying attention for a very long time. The sheer amount of fees associated with tickets has long been a point of contention, and the idea that this is somehow a new revelation is met with disbelief.
A significant concern is that the ruling might be overturned on appeal, especially with the potential influence of powerful corporate interests and political leanings. The fear is that appeals courts, or even the Supreme Court, might side with the company, further entrenching the dominance of these monopolies. The notion of “oligarch buddies” being protected is a stark reflection of this distrust.
However, amidst the skepticism, there’s also genuine hope for tangible change. The next phase involves remedies, and the judge has the power to order significant actions, including the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The jury’s finding of $1.72 in damages per ticket, which will be trebled by law, offers a glimmer of hope for consumers, though it’s acknowledged that not every ticket buyer will receive the full amount.
The existence of a separate class-action lawsuit is also seen as a way to fill in the gaps and ensure broader restitution. It’s been pointed out that this is the same case where the DOJ settled a few weeks prior, but the fact that most state Attorneys General chose not to settle and have now won their case is a significant victory.
The overwhelming sentiment is one of “no fucking shit,” coupled with a disbelief that it took so long for this to be formally recognized. The continuous complaints from the public over many years about these practices should have been enough evidence on their own. The comparison to Amazon being a “mom and pop store” serves to highlight the absurdity of the scale of Ticketmaster’s dominance.
Personal anecdotes, like the inability to use a Ticketmaster gift card for desired events or the company’s lack of responsiveness, further illustrate the frustrating consumer experience. These individual stories contribute to the larger narrative of a company that is perceived as difficult to deal with and ultimately detrimental to the fan experience.
The call to “do printer companies next” or “do healthcare companies” reflects a broader desire to address other industries that are perceived to operate under similar monopolistic or exploitative models. It suggests that the focus on Ticketmaster is part of a larger societal concern about corporate power and consumer protection.
The idea of receiving coupons for free lawn tickets to obscure bands or a meager discount on service fees is a sarcastic take on what many expect as a “remedy,” highlighting the deep cynicism about the effectiveness of the ruling. The long wait for any form of justice, with the phrase “it took 25 years but finally no kidding,” encapsulates the patient, yet weary, struggle of consumers.
The invocation of Theodore Roosevelt, a historical figure known for his trust-busting efforts, signifies a hope for a return to a more regulated era of business. It’s a plea for strong action to dismantle these perceived corporate behemoths and restore a sense of fairness and competition to the market.
While the immediate reaction is overwhelmingly positive, the undertone of skepticism about appeals and potential political interference remains strong. The hope for genuine change is tempered by the reality of how corporate influence can often shape legal outcomes, leaving many to anxiously await the next chapter in this long-standing battle for fair access to live entertainment. The mention of Taylor Swift being furious is a lighthearted, yet telling, nod to the widespread impact of these issues, even on the biggest artists.