GoKawiilConsumer complaints about Ticketmaster are so voluminous at state attorneys general offices that Pennsylvania’s comes with an explicit plea for residents lodging a grievance about the company to be patient for a response. That kind of pressure has driven more than 30 states to push forward with claims that Live Nation-Ticketmaster illegally monopolized parts of the concert industry, even when the federal government settled its claims. Soon it will be up to a jury to decide if the ways Live Nation-Ticketmaster conducts its business is not just frustrating, but also illegal.
An antitrust trial that began March 2nd against Live Nation-Ticketmaster is coming to a close on Thursday. State AGs who pushed forward with their claims after the Justice Department settled one week in took a gamble. They were betting that they could not only win the case, but also get more relief for their constituents, and permanently change the competitive dynamics of music touring in the US, including through a potential breakup of the industry mainstay. The states argued that Live Nation-Ticketmaster maintained its monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive behavior, including leveraging its power in concert promotions and its broad control of amphitheaters across the country to coerce concert venues into using its ticketing platform, even when they preferred not to.
Live Nation pushed back on this narrative, calling on witnesses from its own staff and other industry players who testified to the quality of its services, and the fierce competition it faces. If the jury buys this argument, the DOJ’s deal may look better than its detractors initially thought. But a verdict in the states’ favor opens the potential for sweeping industry change.
The trial faced rocky moments nearly from the jump, after the DOJ’s settlement left state plaintiffs scrambling to litigate on their own. The judge accused both Live Nation and the DOJ of failing to inform him of the status of a deal early enough, and the settlement itself has drawn criticism from players in the concert industry and some of the states that are pressing forward.
It could take a matter of hours or days for the jury to reach a verdict, and a finding in the states’ favor could be the first step toward a breakup of the company. But whatever they decide will almost certainly lead to a long road of appeals.
A threat or reality?
One storyline the jury has heard throughout the trial revolves around a dispute between the ex-CEO of the Barclays Center John Abbamondi and Live Nation’s Michael Rapino. Abbamondi was the government’s first witness, questioned by the DOJ while they were still a party to the case. He described a phone call where he claimed Rapino implicitly threatened to pull concerts from the arena if it did not continue its ticketing deal with Ticketmaster. In a recording of the call played in court, Rapino drops an F-bomb and is audibly upset, saying it might be a “tough time to deliver tickets or concerts with a new competitor in town.” This was this kind of alleged threat that drove SeatGeek to offer retaliation insurance to venues it tried to win over from Ticketmaster, SeatGeek’s CEO later testified.
When Rapino took the stand, he said his frustration was aimed at a disagreement over Abbamondi’s interpretation of Barclays existing contract with Ticketmaster. He was simply conveying the reality that a new nearby arena would likely take business from Barclays. He claimed Abbamondi was “trying to trap me” by bringing up concert promotion in that discussion, Bloomberg reported, and that he expected a chance to match SeatGeek’s offer and was “caught flat footed” when he was denied one.
In a recording of the call played in court, Rapino drops an F-bomb and is audibly upset
The states also called on a Live Nation employee Ben Baker whose internal chats with a colleague bragging about “robbing” fans “blind” with costs for things like parking were exposed during the trial. Baker, now head of ticketing for Live Nation venues, said the 2022 chats were “immature and regrettable,” Bloomberg reported. Rapino condemned the behavior and said he hadn’t been aware of it until this trial, and said he planned to “deal with” the issue that week.
... continue reading