A federal jury has found Live Nation-Ticketmaster illegally operated as a monopoly and overcharged fans, delivering a verdict after four days of deliberations in a seven-week trial in New York City. The decision could reshape the music industry. The concert venue and festival giant now faces the possibility of being forced to divest parts of its business, or even split entirely from Ticketmaster, an outcome former Attorney General Merrick Garland called for when the DOJ filed its lawsuit in May 2024.
Live Nation has just responded with the following statement:
“The jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter. Pending motions will determine whether the liability and damages rulings stand.
Live Nation will soon renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the Court deferred until after the jury returned its verdict. That motion addresses all liability theories. The Court previously noted that Live Nation’s motion raises serious issues.
There is also a pending motion to strike the damages testimony on which the jury’s award was based. The Court deferred ruling on that motion as well, while noting significant concerns with the damages expert’s analysis.
Of course, Live Nation can and will appeal any unfavorable rulings on these motions.
The jury’s award of $1.72 per ticket applies to a limited number of tickets, those sold at 257 venues, which represent about 20% of total tickets, and only to purchases by fans (excluding brokers) in certain states over the past five years. Based on that scope, we believe the aggregate single damages figure would be below $150 million, which would be trebled. In connection with the DOJ settlement, Live Nation has already accrued $280 million toward state damages and civil penalty claims.
Injunctive relief will be determined by the Court after the states make a remedy proposal, which we expect in the coming weeks. In the meantime, the Tunney Act proceedings regarding the DOJ settlement will continue. We remain confident that the ultimate outcome of the States’ case will not be materially different than what is envisioned by the DOJ settlement.”