Live Nation: US sues Ticketmaster owner to break up company – BBC News

US regulators have filed a lawsuit against Live Nation, accusing the entertainment giant of using illegal tactics to maintain its monopoly in the live music industry.

The U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit alleges that the company’s business practices kept competitors out of the market and led to higher ticket prices and poorer service for customers.

Attorney General Merrick Garland asked the courts to break up the company.

In a statement on its website, Live Nation described the claims that the company has a monopoly position as “absurd”.

It said the lawsuit “ignores everything that actually accounts for the higher ticket prices,” citing black market trading on the Internet, the popularity of the artists and higher production costs.

Together with its subsidiary Ticketmaster, Live Nation organizes concerts, sells tickets and owns venues, fulfilling numerous functions that have made it a “gatekeeper” of the industry, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The company owns more than 250 venues in the U.S. and manages about 60 percent of concert promotions at major venues across the country, according to the lawsuit filed by the federal government’s Justice Department and 30 states.

The company also controls about 80 percent of all ticket sales for major entertainment events through Ticketmaster, the lawsuit says.

The company maintained its position through exclusive long-term contracts, threatened venues that used third-party ticketing companies, bought up potential competitors, tied the use of its venues to its advertising services and engaged in other practices, it said.

According to Garland, venues have less “real choice” in ticket services and Ticketmaster can impose “seemingly endless” fees on fans.

He said the company had also pushed smaller promoters out of the market and limited artists’ opportunities to perform.

“Live Nation controls the live entertainment industry in the United States because it violates the law,” he said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit.

“It’s time to stop this,” he added.

According to Live Nation, the lawsuit reflects political pressure and the White House, which has left antitrust enforcement “to a populist urge that simply rejects how antitrust law works.”

“Some call it ‘anti-monopoly’, but in reality it is simply anti-business,” it said.

The company said its market share was declining and its profit margin of 1.4 percent was the “opposite of a monopoly.”

The lawsuit will not “solve fans’ problems related to ticket prices, service fees and access to in-demand shows,” the company said.

“We will fight back against these baseless allegations, use this opportunity to shine a light on the industry and continue to push for reforms that truly protect consumers and artists.”

Live Nation Entertainment was formed in 2010 through the merger of the US event organizer Live Nation and the ticket sales and distribution company Ticketmaster.

Under the Obama administration, the US approved the deal despite fears that it would create a giant that could dominate the live entertainment industry.

But the company has faced criticism for years from fans, lawmakers, artists and competitors for exerting too much influence over live entertainment events in the United States and around the world.

In 2022, website outages experienced by many Taylor Swift fans while trying to purchase tickets for her US tour drew attention to the issue.

John Breyault of the National Consumers League, who has been calling for action against Ticketmaster and Live Nation for years, said regulators made a “bad bet” in 2010 and the lawsuit was long overdue.

He said it was “unpredictable” whether breaking up the company would help lower prices for the public.

However, he said he expected a wider range of ticketing services and a less frustrating process for people trying to buy in-demand shows if the government succeeds in court.

“Anyone who has tried to buy tickets to a Taylor Swift concert can tell you it’s a pretty horrific experience,” he said.

Now, he said, “consumers have nowhere else to go, so there’s no downside to the company. I think that will change if this lawsuit is successful,” he said.