A lawyer for 34 states suing Live Nation Entertainment tried to convince a jury Thursday during an antitrust trial ’s closing arguments that the company and its ticketing arm, Ticketmaster, are monopolizing the industry and driving up concert prices.
But a lawyer for Live Nation insisted in Manhattan federal court that there is more competition than ever and the company plays fair amid a booming concert business across America.
The states, attorney David Marriott said, failed to prove that Live Nation had acted as a monopolist.
“They can’t, and they didn’t,” he said.
The federal government led the civil claims case until it settled the lawsuit it brought in 2024 several weeks ago, saying it had won important concessions from Live Nation, particularly in the sale of tickets at dozens of the company’s amphitheaters. The settlement delayed the trial for a week while states conducted mostly unsuccessful negotiations with Live Nation.
After closing arguments concluded, jurors were instructed on the law by Judge Arun Subramanian. They were expected to start deliberations late Thursday or Friday.
In his closing, attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued on behalf of the states that evidence has shown that the companies “violated antitrust laws and it is time to hold them accountable.”
He reminded jurors that since it was a civil trial, they only needed to find that the states had proven by a preponderance of the evidence — more than 50% — that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally wielded monopoly power.
Kessler labeled the company a “monopolistic bully” and said it had employed practices that “kept digging the moat around the monopoly castle in order to protect their market position.”
Live Nation’s control of 86% of the market for concerts and 73% of the overall market when sports events are included, showed it had monopoly power, he said.
Marriott countered that Live Nation and Ticketmaster were merely reaping the fruits of decades of hard work that created the best products in the industry.
“We are the biggest entertainment company and ticketer in the country. We’re not hiding from that fact,” he said. “We are big. That is not against the laws in the United States. Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States.”
Marriott also said the company tries to “outflank and outcompete” its competitors and the jury should not punish the company because the states had shown some communications in which employees who are “fierce competitors” talk about crushing the competition.
He defended the company decision not to immediately fire an employee who acknowledged from the witness stand that he had written a series of messages from late 2021 through early 2023 in which he mocked customers as “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.”
“People say, sometimes, stupid stuff,” Marriott said, noting the comments were made about the price of lawn chairs and parking. “We don’t condone that. But we also don’t just ax somebody because they made a mistake years in the past.”
Meanwhile, he said, venues and artists are doing better than ever and fans are benefiting from a robust and thriving entertainment industry.
“Our job is to help venues and artists make money. We don’t make excuses for that,” Marriott said.
