Live Nation, Ticketmaster Fail to Get Antitrust Claims Dismissed
While Live Nation-Ticketmaster may have entered the year, as they called it, 'hopeful' that Donald Trump's presidency would bode well for its fight against the massive antitrust lawsuit filed by federal prosecutors last May, the company took a hit Friday when a Biden-appointed judge rejected its bid to dismiss a core element of the Justice Department's complaint.
In a seven-page ruling obtained by Rolling Stone, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian refused to toss the DOJ's claim that Live Nation coerces artists into using its concert promotion services if they want to perform at venues in the company's vast network of major amphitheaters.
More from Rolling Stone
Sean Combs Speaks to Court, Pleads Not Guilty to New Indictments
Soulja Boy Begins Trial on Sexual Assault Allegations
Sean Combs' Lawyers, Government Clash Over Jury Selection and Trial Start Date
Subramanian – the same judge who oversaw Sean 'Diddy' Combs' re-arraignment on racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges Friday – found that at this early stage of the government's lawsuit, prosecutors have sufficiently established their claim that Live Nation engaged in illegal 'tying,' the practice of requiring artists to purchase one product or service to gain access to a different product or service.
The judge, based in New York, shot down Live Nation's argument that it's not forcing artists into 'tying' because it's actually competing concert promoters hired by artists, not the artists themselves, who rent the venues, and Live Nation has no duty to aid its competitors. 'The complaint explains that due to Live Nation's monopoly power in the large-amphitheater market, artists are effectively locked into using Live Nation as the promoter for a tour that stops at large amphitheaters,' Subramanian wrote.
'The nature of the financial arrangement between promoters and artists is a factual question that can't be resolved on the pleadings, and the complaint at least suggests that it's artist-specific,' he wrote. 'If the evidence shows that promoters book venues on behalf of specific artists, that artists are the driving force behind which venues to book and when, and that artists are coerced into using Live Nation as their promoter if they want access to Live Nation's amphitheaters, plaintiffs may have a viable tying claim.'
Lawyers and reps representing Live Nation did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. The DOJ filed the underlying complaint with attorneys general from 29 states and the District of Columbia, painting the concert giant as a mob-like organization and aiming to break it up. In the second part of his decision issued Friday, Judge Subramanian ruled that the states had established their standing to act on behalf of consumers who claim they were overcharged due to Live Nation-Ticketmaster's alleged anti-competitive practices in the primary ticketing market.
'The thrust of the complaint is that Live Nation engaged in a variety of exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly over primary-ticketing services, and consumers suffered injury by using those services and getting overcharged. Whatever market definitions one employs, where a defendant unlawfully maintains its monopoly over a product through a course of exclusionary conduct focusing on that product, consumers of that product alleging that they were overcharged suffer a cognizable injury,' he wrote.
'We are not here today because Live Nation-Ticketmaster's conduct is inconvenient, or frustrating. We are here because as we allege that conduct is anti-competitive, and illegal,' Former Attorney General Merrick Garland said when prosecutors first filed the lawsuit last May. 'We allege that Live Nation has illegally monopolized markets across the live concert industry in the United States for far too long. It is time to break it up.'
Former Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter initially led the charge for the DOJ. He left the department in December after Trump won the election. Trump's nominee to replace him, Gail Slater, was confirmed on Tuesday. Unlike Trump's other appointees, she has been critical of corporate power. Still, it's not yet clear how she will handle the Biden-era lawsuit's she's inheriting.
Best of Rolling Stone
The 50 Greatest Eminem Songs
All 274 of Taylor Swift's Songs, Ranked
The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Rare Earth Magnet Exports Slump in May, Especially to US
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Chinese exports of rare earth magnets slumped further in May, with shipments to the US showing an especially steep drop due to the trade war with Washington. Rare earth minerals, and the products that use the elements, have been at the center of the dispute since early April, when China imposed export controls in retaliation for punitive tariffs levied on Chinese goods. The two countries have since sought to reset relations, culminating in a meeting in London in early June, which prompted US President Donald Trump to declare that issues around rare earths had been resolved. China accounts for about 90% of the world's rare earth products, most of which are magnets, and whether it allows supplies to flow more freely after the agreement reached in London will be a key focus for governments and markets in the weeks and months to come. Chinese customs data on Friday showed the extent of the impact on supplies of rare earth magnets in particular, an item vital for high-tech industries from carmakers to defense contractors. The controls have affected sales to all countries, with China's total exports roughly halving in April, and then halving again in May, to 1,238 tons. That comes to about $60 million, the lowest-value month in data going back to 2015, barring February 2020 and the onset of the pandemic. The US portion by volume in May was just 46 tons, less than one-tenth of the magnets it imported in March. Other countries including Vietnam, host to a number of Chinese companies, and Germany saw their supplies hold up much better. Those two countries were the top destinations last month, accounting for 19% and 17% of sales, respectively. --With assistance from James Mayger. Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Pledge of Quick China Magnet Flows Has Yet to Materialize
Almost 10 days since President Donald Trump declared a 'done' trade deal with Beijing, US companies remain largely in the dark on when they'll receive crucial magnets from China — and whether Washington, in turn, will allow a host of other exports to resume. While there has been a trickle of required permits, many American firms that need Chinese minerals are still waiting on Beijing's approval for shipments, according to people familiar with the process. China's system is improving but remains cumbersome, they said, contrary to Trump's assurances rare earths would flow 'up front' after a June 11 accord struck in London.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court revives industry effort to axe California clean car standards
The Supreme Court revived an industry effort to axe California's stricter vehicle emissions standards on Friday. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled fuel producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allowing the challenge to continue. 'This case concerns only standing, not the merits,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident.' Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, dissented. The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California — and only California. The EPA granted such a waiver in 2013, only for the Trump administration to partially withdraw it after taking office. Once former President Biden arrived at the White House, his EPA reinstated the waiver, putting the stricter emissions standards back in play. A group of producers of gasoline and other liquid fuels sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars, which would cause a hit to the fuel producers' sales. But the EPA and California argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires a showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA contended that consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate, anyway, so the regulations no longer have impact. The Supreme Court's decision rejects that notion, reversing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that tossed the lawsuit. 'If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell,' he added. In separate dissents, Sotomayor and Jackson said they would've sided with the EPA and California and noted the case may become moot. 'I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,' Sotomayor wrote, saying she would've sent the case back to the lower court for another look. In her separate dissent, Jackson was more forceful, saying her colleagues weren't applying the courts' standing doctrine evenhandedly, warning it may contribute to an erosion of public trust in judges. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,' Jackson wrote.
