Feds seek info on 'unfair,' 'anticompetitive' practices in live entertainment industry
May 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. government seeks information from Americans about practices or conduct deemed "anticompetitive" in the entertainment industry, officials announced Wednesday in a public inquiry.
The U.S. Justice Department will "continue to closely examine this market and look for opportunities where vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws can lead to increased competition that makes tickets more affordable for fans while offering fairer compensation for artists," U.S. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the department's Antitrust Division said in a release.
DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission launched its joint inquiry to identify "unfair and anticompetitive" practices, conduct or ticket marketing in the live concert and entertainment industry as part of an executive order signed March 31 by U.S. President Donald Trump that targeted unfair practices in the live entertainment market.
Trump's order, signed during an Oval Office event with musician Kid Rock, directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and the FTC chair to "ensure that competition laws are appropriately enforced" in the concert and entertainment industry.
It further directs the FTC to "rigorously enforce" the 2016 Obama-era Better Online Tickets Sales Act, and also directed Bondi, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and the FTC chair to identify specific legislative or regulatory solutions.
Entertainer Kid Rock (L) looks on as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order on March 31 in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. Trump's order directed the Federal Trade Commission to work with the U.S. Department of Justice to ensure competition laws are enforced in the concert and entertainment industry, and pushes state consumer protection authorities on enforcement. File Photo by Al Drago/UPI
The BOTS Act allows the FTC to go against individuals and companies utilizing bots to buy concert tickets in bulk and resell them, and eliminated the practice of excess ticket scalping that raises prices for sporting events or theater shows.
"Many Americans feel like they are being priced out of live entertainment by scalpers, bots and other unfair and deceptive practices," FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the federal agencies invited U.S. citizens to submit public comment and other information on "harmful practices" and potential regulation or legislation to protect consumers, which officials say will be used to ready a report for the White House with listed recommendations.
Officials pointed to U.S. consumers, artists, small businesses, trade groups, industry analysts as scores of other entities invited to give feedback to authorities as affected groups by perceived anticompetitive practices in the industry.
The federal government, along with 40 state and district attorneys general, is currently litigating a civil antitrust lawsuit brought on in 2024 against Live Nation Entertainment's subsidiary Ticketmaster for alleged "monopolization" and other "unlawful conduct" that allegedly thwarted competition in markets across America's live entertainment markets.
The public, meanwhile, will have 60 days to submit comments no later than July 6.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
16 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Massive Tech Layoffs May Be the Fault of a 2017 Trump Tax Cut
The good times in Silicon Valley are over—at least as far as the current generation of coders is concerned. The software industry is shrinking and, since 2023, the tech industry has been hemorrhaging jobs at an astounding rate. Workers who would've been secure several years ago are now out on their asses. While the reasons for this are diverse (AI is often discussed as a potential culprit and the overall economy has had its ups and downs over the past several years), one potential driver could also be the tax cuts that Trump passed in 2017. It turns out that a little-known provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 altered a longstanding loophole, known as Section 174, that allowed the tech industry to offload the cost of its research and development operations onto the federal government. Prior to the TCJA, tech companies could deduct 100 percent of the costs of R&D, allowing tech businesses the freedom to commit significant resources towards innovation. Bloomberg reports that, as Congress sought to find a way to offset the cost of giving big tax cuts to billionaires, one place where they discovered fat to trim was the tech industry's R&D funding. 2017's bill shifted the deduction from a full write-off to funding that would have to be parsed out over a period of several years. The provision that pared back the funding did not kick in until 2022, however. Not long after it went into effect, the tech industry began shedding jobs like nobody's business. Indeed, 2023 and 2024 were historically bad years for the tech industry, with major companies like Meta, Amazon, and Google booting workers by the thousands. Quartz took a deeper look at the ties between this policy shift and the tech industry's troubles and now speculates that there is a positive correlation: …the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That's the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a 'niche issue with broad impact,' echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters. Quartz also notes that the policy change would have translated into a loss of income for a variety of positions: The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. The reality of the government's subsidization of Silicon Valley is particularly ironic given the rabid anti-government sentiment currently circulating in the industry. People like Marc Andreessen would have you believe that tech's R&D can be funded through private money alone, despite no reputable track record of it happening. Elon Musk's DOGE, meanwhile, recently attacked the very parts of the government that have been responsible for helping companies like his own (Tesla) flourish. It's yet another sign that America's billionaires are so greed-addled that they're willing to shoot a gift horse in the mouth and call it victory. Not everybody in the tech industry is an idiot, however. There is currently a concerted effort to reestablish the government's R&D subsidy. The American Innovation and R&D Competitiveness Act, which was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, would restore the full flow of federal dollars for tech's development needs. Last month, representatives from major tech firms reportedly signaled to the Trump administration that they might pull back from previous pledges of U.S. investment if the full tax subsidy didn't return.
E&E News
17 minutes ago
- E&E News
Interior employees may get extra month to return to office
The Interior Department has sent a reminder to employees that they must return to work at the office on June 16 — unless there's not enough room for them. The department promised in an email to staff Friday they'll be granted up to a one-month reprieve — until July 16 — from the return-to-office order the agency issued in April if space cannot be found for those employees by next Monday's deadline. The email noted that the department is 'diligently' working to find a 'workstation' for each returning employee. And when a location has been found, regardless of whether it's at an Interior building or at another agency's, 'the employee must accept it,' according to the email viewed by POLITICO's E&E News. Advertisement The email, which wasn't signed by a specific Interior official, is the latest in the administration's ongoing effort to force federal workers to return to the office in accordance with an executive order President Donald Trump issued in January. The order targeted telework and remote work for federal employees.
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump may have to choose: Making trade deals or keeping his car tariffs
President Donald Trump is telling domestic audiences he won't cut his 25 percent tariffs on foreign cars as part of any trade deals he negotiates. But other countries — who collectively send millions of vehicles to the U.S. each year — haven't gotten that message. Trading partners like the EU, Japan and South Korea are laboring under the impression that the auto tariffs, which Trump imposed in April, are still on the table, according to two people familiar with the talks between Trump officials and those countries, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. If Trump is really unwilling to lower or eliminate his tariffs on foreign cars, it could prove to be a major hurdle to securing meaningful trade deals with some of the country's top trading partners. Japan, South Korea and Germany sold more than $121 billion in cars and car parts in the U.S. in 2024. The White House did not answer when asked if auto tariffs were on the table for negotiations and instead reiterated the goal of the tariffs. 'No president has taken a greater interest in reviving America's once-dominant auto industry than President Trump, and the auto industry is a key focus of the Trump administration's trade and economic policies,' said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson. 'Discussions with our major trading partners continue, and the Trump administration continues to seek better trade deals for American industries and workers.' A decision to lift the tariffs for more countries, particularly those whose companies compete most fiercely with American carmakers, risks alienating a powerful manufacturing bloc and undercutting a central tenet of Trump's trade agenda — forcing companies to build more products in the U.S. The Trump administration has assured American automakers that when it comes to auto tariffs being used as a bargaining chip, they have 'nothing to worry about,' according to a person familiar with discussions between the administration and Detroit's 'Big Three' auto companies, granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks. Trump has said a deal to lower the tariff on a small number of British cars, announced last month, was an exception. 'I won't do that deal with cars' for other countries, Trump said when announcing the terms of negotiation with the U.K. on May 8. The British auto brand Rolls-Royce is 'a very special car and it's a very limited number too. It's not one of the monster car companies that makes millions of cars,' he noted. Even that agreement, which lowered the tariff on 100,000 cars, less than 1 percent of total U.S. annual car sales, drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. automakers. 'This hurts American automakers, suppliers, and auto workers,' the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, said at the time, saying they hoped it 'does not set a precedent for future negotiations with Asian and European competitors.' The tension between the two goals — boosting domestic auto production while also negotiating delicate agreements to lower trade barriers — highlights the challenge facing the administration as it races to secure deals with dozens of countries before the president's double-digit 'reciprocal' tariffs are slated to kick back in next month. 'To ease the sting of those tariffs on the auto sectors for Korea and Japan is of course a high priority for them,' said Michael Beeman, a former assistant U.S. trade representative who focused on Japan and South Korea. 'I think for those countries, to be able to declare success from the talks at home, they would expect some sort of consideration.' The auto tariffs have already been a sticking point in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, both of which are invested in maintaining a high level of domestic auto manufacturing. Auto exports from South Korea to the U.S. have exploded over the past 20 years, from $8.7 billion in 2005 to $37.3 billion in 2024, according to data collected by the Census Bureau. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has said publicly that any trade deal with Japan would have to result in lower auto tariffs. Now, as the two countries are on their fifth round of talks, with a planned meeting between Ishiba and Trump at the G7 in Canada in two weekends, both countries are projecting optimism about a deal. 'I think we'll also need to address, at a minimum, the auto [Section] 232 tariffs,' said Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator with the U.S. trade representative's office and the vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said when asked what it would take to get a deal with Japan. Cutler said any deal with Japan or South Korea could have a lower tariff for a certain number of vehicles, similar to the deal with the U.K. Or, 'they could also just be very vague and say that the U.S. notes Japan's concern on the auto tariffs, and both sides agree to negotiate possible lowering of the tariffs in this detailed negotiation to follow,' she said. Trump has already agreed to lower tariffs on automobiles once. In his first trade agreement since imposing a global 10 percent tariff on nearly every U.S. trading partner and potentially higher rates on more than 60 countries, Trump struck an agreement with the U.K. that would allow the country to ship 100,000 vehicles into the country at a 10 percent tariff — lower than the current 25 percent tariff on automobiles and auto parts. The deal drew condemnation from American automakers, who noted that it meant a lower tariff on cars imported from the U.K. than on North American-made cars that include U.S.-made parts. They expressed concern that lowering tariffs with major auto manufacturing countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany would make it more expensive to build cars with parts from North America — creating an unfair playing field and effectively undercutting the administration's effort to boost domestic auto manufacturing. Vehicles made across the integrated North American supply chain still face a 25 percent tariff on non-U.S. made content, even if the vehicle is compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. The Trump administration has continued to press foreign automakers to move production to the U.S. Last week, Trump met with German automakers, who offered $100 billion in investment in the U.S., according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trump — and Republicans on Capitol Hill — say those commitments are a sign that tariffs are working. 'They make BMWs in South Carolina, Volvo. They make Mercedes in Alabama,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday. Under Trump, 'They're talking about making the engine now in South Carolina. They're talking about more content in South Carolina.' There has yet to be an uptick in U.S. auto manufacturing, however, a reminder that the investment pledges will take years to fully develop. Auto manufacturing jobs held steady between April and May, though there were 2,240 fewer auto manufacturing jobs in May, compared to 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While welcoming the announcements, the Trump White House has given no indication the investment pledges will convince the president to lower auto tariffs on foreign countries. 'I mean, unless somebody shows me that there's another kind of a car that's comparable to a Rolls-Royce,' Trump said in May, 'and there aren't too many.'
