A jury should see evidence and decide whether Live Nation’s conduct in the concert business amounts to illegal monopolization, US District Judge
The judge said the government can proceed with its allegations that Live Nation ties the use of its amphitheaters to its concert promotion services and monopolizes the ticketing market. However, Subramanian threw out claims that the company monopolizes the concert promotion market and harms fans through higher ticket prices.
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.
Live Nation, in a statement, said it was “grateful that the district court dismissed all claims in the concert promotions and concert booking markets. With those claims gone, we see no possible basis for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The deficiencies we identified in the government’s monopoly power and conduct claims have not gone away, and we continue to believe that we will prevail in the end.”
And in a letter to Subramanian late Wednesday evening, Live Nation said that because he threw out the claims related to the concert promotion market, it would be a “legal error” to keep alive the claim that it ties amphitheaters to the use of its promotion services. The company is seeking to resolve that issue ahead of trial.
Read More:
Live Nation asked the judge to decide on the case without a trial. The federal government and some 30 state attorneys general sued in 2024 alleging Live Nation illegally monopolized the live events industry.
The company controls more than 265 concert venues in North America and manages more than 400 musical artists, according to the complaint. The government says the company controls 87% of the concert ticketing market through its Ticketmaster subsidiary and more than 65% of the concert promotion market.
According to the judge, Live Nation “vastly overstated” the competitiveness of the ticketing market. Subramanian said “the government plausibly paints a grim picture for new entrants.”
However, Live Nation won dismissal of a key claim involving its concert promotion business. The DOJ and states accused the company of monopolizing concert promotion services to “major concert venues.” Subramanian ruled the evidence “supports only the trivial conclusion that Live Nation and other market players often discuss promotion services in reference to some kind of venue,” and not the specific types of venues discussed in the lawsuit.
That ruling may dampen the possibility of a breakup. Live Nation bought Ticketmaster in 2010 after a controversial settlement with the federal government, and the DOJ and states are hoping to unwind that deal.
According to the complaint, Live Nation’s conduct in ticketing and concert promotions were “mutually reinforcing” in its efforts to dominate the live music industry. Because the judge threw out the claims that Live Nation monopolizes the concert promotion market, that could undermine the need for a break up.
However, the company’s power in the promotions market still factors into the allegations that it monopolizes ticketing, so it could still be feasible for the DOJ to seek to separate the two businesses.
New York Attorney General
The case is US v. Live Nation Entertainment, 24-cv-03973, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
(Updates with Live Nation letter to the judge on the concert promotion tying claim in sixth paragraph.)
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Steve Stroth, Elizabeth Wasserman
© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.