To compete, ticketing rival SeatGeek created "retaliation insurance" for venues. This unique financial product was designed to cover losses if Live Nation withheld artists from venues that dropped Ticketmaster, highlighting the market's perception of Live Nation's coercive power.
Despite the federal DOJ settling its case against Live Nation, dozens of state attorneys general are continuing the lawsuit. This demonstrates a trend of states stepping in to enforce antitrust laws, serving as a critical check when federal enforcement is perceived as weak or politically influenced.
The DOJ's settlement with Live Nation was widely seen as ineffective by industry experts. Concessions like access to an outdated 1980s-era backend system and divesting booking contracts instead of physical venues were considered minimal changes that wouldn't alter market dynamics.
Audio of Live Nation's CEO can be interpreted as either a standard, aggressive business negotiation or an illegal, monopolistic threat. This ambiguity illustrates the difficulty prosecutors face in proving anti-competitive intent to a jury, which can interpret the same evidence in vastly different ways.
The government's case against Live Nation/Ticketmaster isn't just about consumer frustration. It centers on the company allegedly using its dominance in promotions and venues to illegally force partners into using its ticketing service, thereby locking out competitors.
The once-growing bipartisan consensus for aggressive antitrust enforcement, which saw conservatives like J.D. Vance praise Biden's FTC chief, has largely dissipated. The Trump administration's conciliatory, settlement-focused approach signals a retreat from this populist alignment.
The abrupt departure of DOJ antitrust chief Gail Slater, following reports of backroom deals being made over her head, casts a shadow over the subsequent weak Live Nation settlement. This suggests internal conflict and potential political interference weakening the DOJ's enforcement arm.
President Trump's reported personal involvement in demanding a "speedy settlement" for the Live Nation antitrust case, allegedly after a call from a lobbyist, signifies a highly unusual departure from traditional, law-based antitrust enforcement and raises concerns about political influence.