Live Nation Reaches DOJ Settlement in Antitrust Case

Right. And it's changing by the minute. By the way, I keep seeing new reports with new details, but it looks like at least one part of it is a divestiture that would be divesting large amphitheaters that are owned by Live Nation. The Department of Justice alleged that Live Nation owned 60 out of the 100 top amphitheaters in the U.S. and the control over those amphitheaters, which the artists really need for summer tours. Desire for summer tours was part of the problem. Some of the claims that were left in this litigation. So selling some of them opens them up to other promoters. Okay. I guess one big question people had was Ticketmaster the fate of Ticketmaster and whether that stays with Live Nation or whether it's spun out or the company is forced to sell that? Do we have a firm answer as to what happens to Ticketmaster? Well, not really. According to the DOJ settlement, it does not have to be sold. But there are 40 states involved as well. There are also plaintiffs. And they also have the authority to litigate under federal antitrust laws, just as the Department of Justice does. And not all of them have settled. According to the news reports, New York has actually come out and said this isn't good enough. We're going to continue on. So if they continue on with the litigation, they will continue to seek a divestiture order from the judge for Live Nation to sell Ticketmaster. They see that as the only solution to kind of fix a broken concert ticketing system and live concert industry. I'll tell you, I think it's a long shot. You know, once you get the settlement with the Department of Justice and you kind of get the you lose the weight of the Department of Justice behind you on these antitrust matters, it is difficult for the states to go forward and win, even if they won a jury determination that Live Nation was guilty of a legal monopolization. I'm not so sure that the judge would be willing to stick his neck out and impose what's considered a really drastic remedy generally to force a company to break itself up. So let's play pretend and say the states are not successful there with their trials. Does this DOJ settlement mean anything at all to you and me when we go out to try to buy tickets? I mean, as I've said this, people who listen to the show regularly know I talk about being a family of five. And man, if you take out a small mortgage, it's just like take the whole family to go see a show. So. So is that going to get any better under this settlement as it stands? I'll tell you that I'm skeptical. And you know, what you just said is why this case is so politically popular. And this was a little bit surprising because it really has bipartisan interest. It has bipartisan support. You know, it consumer support Kit Rock was going to come along and he was going to be a witness for the for the plaintiffs in this case because Live Nation has been under a Department of Justice consent order since 2010. So in other words, since 2010, the way they behave in the marketplace was supposed to be regulated. They were supposed to behave in a certain way. And they've managed to really get around that for years. In fact, during the first Trump administration, the Department of Justice investigated, determined that Live Nation was violating the terms of that order and extended it and sort of bolstered its terms. And now this case came along with the allegation that no live nation continues to violate the terms of that order. And so my skepticism comes from there are new terms here that they're talking about that, again, are behavioral. I talked about selling the amps, but there are also behavioral conditions. And if Live Nation has been able to get around behavioral conditions since 2010, I'm not sure what's going to stop them now. What about Ticketmaster's competitors? Have they done things better? Have they changed the way that they sell tickets or that they allow people to buy and sell tickets? Well, it's interesting you ask, because the CEO and founder of Seatgeek was one of the witnesses I heard last week. And Seatgeek started as a secondary ticket seller. They were just a marketplace to bring together people who wanted to sell tickets they couldn't use and buyers. But they're trying to get into what's called primary ticketing, being the first one to ticket an event and really have struggled. And they say they have struggled because of Live Nation, that they have superior technology, that their platform is better, that what they can offer venues is better. But they haven't been able to get those venues signed up because either they have a long term exclusive agreement to be ticketed by Ticketmaster or because Live Nation, which is a huge promoter, handles artist tours, said, We'll route our artists around your venue. We won't bring them to your venue if you use some company other than Ticketmaster. So so really what we've seen is that Ticketmaster doesn't have a lot of competition in the ticketing area, and part of it is allegedly because of its own conduct.

Jennifer Rie, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Litigation Analyst, discusses the settlement reached between Live Nation and the Justice Department over alleged music industry monopolization. Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its Ticketmaster subsidiary have reached a settlement with federal antitrust authorities, the Justice Department said Monday, throwing a wrench mid-trial into an antitrust case that accused the company of illegally monopolizing the live music industry. The agreement was announced Monday with no details provided. Bloomberg News previously reported that the sides were nearing a settlement that wouldn’t require Live Nation to sell its Ticketmaster subsidiary. Andrew Kline, a Justice Department lawyer, said that Live Nation and the federal government signed a binding preliminary agreement on Thursday evening. He didn’t disclose any details about the settlement terms, which still need to be finalized and then reviewed by Judge Arun Subramanian. Kline asked the court to pause the trial while the Justice Department works to create a final judgment in the case. News of the settlement drew criticism from Washington, DC, and states that had signed onto the Justice Department’s case. Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the DC attorney general, said that no states have officially signed on to the settlement agreement, and several, including Texas, are opposed. He asked the court for a mistrial. New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that at least 25 states and DC will continue with the trial, along with New York. The settlement “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case,” she said. “We cannot agree to it.” Subramanian castigated the Justice Department and the states for what he said was an “entirely unacceptable” process. The judge said the parties informed him on Friday about the possibility of a settlement, but failed to disclose that a binding preliminary agreement had already been executed. “There has been public reporting about the potential for settlement for a number of months,” the judge said. “You had the power to address it in a deliberate way, either during the trial or before the trial process and you didn’t.” -------- Watch Bloomberg Radio LIVE on YouTube Weekdays 7am-6pm ET WATCH HERE: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF Follow us on X: https://twitter.com/BloombergRadio Subscribe to our Podcasts: Bloomberg Daybreak: http://bit.ly/3DWYoAN Bloomberg Surveillance: http://bit.ly/3OPtReI Bloomberg Intelligence: http://bit.ly/3YrBfOi Balance of Power: http://bit.ly/3OO8eLC Bloomberg Businessweek: http://bit.ly/3IPl60i Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app: Apple CarPlay: https://apple.co/486mghI Android Auto: https://bit.ly/49benZy Visit our YouTube channels: Bloomberg Podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/bloombergpodcasts Bloomberg Television: https://www.youtube.com/@markets Bloomberg Originals: https://www.youtube.com/bloomberg Quicktake: https://www.youtube.com/@BloombergQuicktake