Listen to this article
Estimated 5 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
Live Nation Entertainment and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a proposed settlement on Monday, ending the antitrust trial targeting the company’s alleged monopoly over parts of the entertainment industry just a week after it began.
News of the settlement came out in a Monday morning court hearing, where it was also disclosed that Live Nation is in talks with state attorneys general to secure a broader resolution of related state-level antitrust claims.
The deal caps ticketing service fees at 15 per cent, and will allow venues to sell some tickets through competitors like SeatGeek or StubHub rather than on Ticketmaster exclusively, the company said in a media release.
Live Nation said it will also divest from its 13 exclusive booking agreements with amphitheatres and create a $280 million US settlement fund to address damage claims made by various states, which joined the DOJ in bringing the initial lawsuit in 2024.
“By giving artists greater flexibility in choosing their promotional partners and ticketing strategy while also keeping the cost of a concert more affordable for fans, we are putting more power where it should be – with artists and fans,” said Michael Rapino, president and CEO of Live Nation Entertainment in the release.
The settlement is only proposed at this point, meaning it still needs to be approved by the judge.
The Department of Justice did not reply to CBC News’s requests for comment.
Stephen Selznick, a partner with the Toronto-based law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell who has expertise in entertainment law, says that the 15 per cent cap on service fees is a “good start” and could help bring down ticket prices. But he doesn’t expect that will impact the resale ticket market, which has been a major complaint of concertgoers.
How effective the deal is will also depend on how the terms are enforced, according to William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University. He’s also worried that politics could be playing a role in the decision to settle.
In the past year under the Trump administration, two high-ranking antitrust enforcers were fired from the DOJ following an internal dispute related to a different lawsuit, and assistant attorney general Gail Slater also stepped down from the DOJ’s antitrust division last month.
“All of those episodes are going to hang over this transaction,” Kovacic said.
States say they will continue case
In 2024, the DOJ sued Live Nation, accusing the company of operating a “flywheel” operation, using money from ticket sales to sign artists into exclusive promotional deals, before using its cache of artists to sign venues into exclusive ticketing deals.
Live Nation has maintained that the suit would not address the concerns of fans, and previously said it would prevail in court.
The agreement brings the high-profile trial — in which the DOJ initially sought a breakup of the company when it sued Live Nation — to a partial end. While several states are reportedly on side with the settlement, a number of others expressed discontent and said they would continue fighting the case without the federal government.
The U.S. Justice Department is suing Live Nation, the owner of Ticketmaster, alleging it has illegally monopolized the live music industry — harming fans, artists and venues in the process. Andrew Chang lays out the argument for dismantling the company.
New York Attorney General Letitia James pushed back on the settlement, saying it “fails to address the monopoly at the centre of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers.”
She vowed to continue her lawsuit against Live Nation, alongside about two dozen other states, including Arizona, California and Illinois. Attorneys general for other states including California and New Jersey also issues similar statements.
Kovacic says many of the states including New York have “first-rate” antitrust units and would be very capable of continuing the case without the DOJ — even continuing to pursue a breakup of the company.
“This transaction is hardly over,” he said. “There are many rivers to cross before it comes to a close.”
Will it impact Canada?
There’s no promise that the rules of the settlement would spill over into Canada, according to Vass Bednar with the Canadian SHIELD Institute, a think-tank focused on the Canadian economy and competition.
She says there isn’t necessarily any incentive for Live Nation to make any changes to its Canadian operations at this point, and that officials here shouldn’t rely on officials abroad to bring change.
“We can’t rely on other regulators to do our homework for us,” Bednar said. “If there are practices that we think abuse the dominance of this firm or that are problematic, then we should be taking our own action within the border of our nation.”
The Current19:47Ticketmaster has ‘broken’ the concert industry
The Consumer Council of Canada has applied to sue Live Nation, arguing that the company has become a gatekeeper to many parts of the entertainment industry.
Selznick says Canadian groups pursuing action against Live Nation were likely watching the U.S. trial closely for relevant facts that could potentially be used in cases north of the border, but he notes that the settlement means that evidence won’t be heard — at least not until the states resume their trials.
“A real trial would give us findings of fact that someone did something or didn’t do something. And that could be very helpful in the Canadian cases,” he said. “But we don’t have that finding of fact, we simply have a non-event now. We have someone paying money to make the case go away.”
More Stories
Not just oil: Fertilizer prices spike amid Iran war, worrying Canadian farmers
TikTok allowed to keep business in Canada under new rules
Markets steady, crude oil prices ease on Tuesday after volatile start to week