Guest Post: How The Live Nation Antitrust Verdict Could Level The Playing Field for Artists And Fans Alike

By Bradfield Biggers

Following a roughly six-week trial in the Southern District of New York, a federal jury recently found that Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully monopolized key parts of the live entertainment business, including primary ticketing at major venues and the market for large amphitheaters. The jury also found that Live Nation unlawfully tied access to its amphitheaters to its promotion services, delivering a major antitrust loss to one of the most powerful companies in live music.

One of the most closely watched antitrust cases in recent memory, the litigation has been building for years. In May 2024, the Department of Justice, joined by state and district attorneys general, sued Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster, alleging monopolization and other unlawful conduct across the live concert industry and seeking relief designed to restore competition, lower prices for fans and open venue doors for working musicians and other performance artists.

The significance of the verdict is not just that a jury found unlawful monopoly power. It is that the verdict could ultimately strengthen artist leverage in a part of the business where many performers, especially developing and mid-level acts, have long had very little of it. When one company controls so much of the infrastructure around live performance, from ticketing to venue access to promotion, artists have fewer alternatives and less bargaining power. That imbalance does not just affect fans at checkout. It can shape the economics of an entire tour.

For many artists, touring is not just a portion of their business. It is the business. In an era where streaming economics remain challenging for all but the biggest stars, live performance often represents the clearest path to meaningful income. But when ticketing fees swell, venue options narrow, and access to key amphitheaters is allegedly conditioned on use of a dominant promoter, the practical effect is to squeeze the people actually putting on the show. Even where the consumer sees only a higher final ticket price, the artist may be absorbing the downstream consequences in the form of reduced flexibility on pricing, thinner margins, and less room to support crew, production, and touring overhead. The DOJ itself framed the case as one about restoring competition in a way that could create better choices not only for fans, but also for working musicians and other performance artists.

If the case results in meaningful relief, whether through damages, structural changes, or constraints on exclusionary conduct, artists could have a more credible ability to negotiate among competing venues, promoters, and ticketing platforms rather than operating within a system dominated by a single ecosystem. More competition typically means more options. More options generally means more leverage. And more leverage, in turn, can mean lower transaction costs, better deal terms and a greater share of concert economics flowing to artists and their teams instead of to the gatekeepers controlling access. That is the theory, at least, and it is one that many artists, managers and independent operators have been waiting years to see tested.

There is also reason to believe that a more competitive market could materially reduce costs over time, though it is important not to overstate what has happened yet. The jury found that Ticketmaster’s conduct caused concertgoers in 22 states to overpay by $1.72 per ticket. On its own, that figure may not sound dramatic, but across millions of tickets it becomes substantial, and more importantly, it reflects a jury finding that market power translated into real economic harm. If future remedies curb the conduct at issue and create more meaningful competition, lower costs for fans could also translate into better economics for artists, particularly those whose ability to raise prices is constrained by fan sensitivity to all-in ticket costs.

That said, the verdict does not itself instantly change the market. The jury determined liability, but the court still must decide what remedies, penalties or structural relief will follow, and Live Nation has already indicated it will continue to challenge the outcome. So this is not the moment to declare that service fees are about to fall overnight or that Live Nation and Ticketmaster are on the verge of an immediate breakup. Those questions remain unresolved.

Still, the ruling is a meaningful first step. At a minimum, it validates concerns that artists, venues, competitors, and fans have raised for years about how concentrated power in the live music business affects pricing, access, and bargaining strength. And if the next phase of the case produces real relief, the long-term impact could be a live market in which artists have more negotiating power, independent venues and ticketing companies have a fairer chance to compete, and more of the value created by a concert flows to the people who actually make it happen.

Bradfield Biggers leads the Entertainment, Media & Music practice at Halloran Farkas + Kittila from the firm’s Los Angeles office. He represents clients across film, television, music, and technology in complex transactions involving music, audiovisual, and digital rights, including cross-border music catalog transactions.