Live Nation Trial Continues with Defense Witnesses Backing Ticketmaster

Judge weighs claims of witness intimidation against the government

Apr. 4, 2026 at 12:21am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic studio still life featuring a stack of concert tickets, a microphone, and a gavel floating on a clean, monochromatic background, conceptually representing the abstract legal and corporate issues at the heart of the Live Nation antitrust trial.As the high-stakes legal battle over Live Nation's market dominance continues, the trial's focus shifts to the competitive dynamics of the live music ticketing industry.Brooklyn Today

In the fourth week of Live Nation's antitrust trial, key defense witnesses took the stand to make the case that Ticketmaster has a genuine competitive edge over rival ticketing services. Meanwhile, Live Nation accused the government of trying to suppress testimony that would have shown AEG's ticketing system was inferior to Ticketmaster.

Why it matters

The testimony from Live Nation's witnesses goes to the heart of the company's defense - that it has secured its market dominance through superior service, not anti-competitive behavior. If Live Nation can convince the jury of this, it could undermine the states' case for breaking up the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger.

The details

Live Nation continued presenting its case this week, with witnesses like Laurie Jacoby of Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment and Jim Van Stone of Monumental Sports & Entertainment testifying that Ticketmaster was the better option for their venues, not because of threats from Live Nation, but due to Ticketmaster's superior service. Expert witness Eric Budish also said Ticketmaster has a genuine competitive edge. However, Budish admitted to being paid over $1 million by Live Nation. The biggest fireworks came not from witness testimony, but in a legal filing where Live Nation accused the states of trying to suppress testimony that would have shown AEG's ticketing system was inferior to Ticketmaster.

  • The trial continued in Manhattan federal court this week, with no jury testimony on April 1 or 2 as the judge and parties dealt with legal issues.
  • The trial will resume on April 6, with the potential for closing statements and the start of jury deliberations in the next week.

The players

Laurie Jacoby

CEO of Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment, who testified about problems with SeatGeek as the venue's ticketer.

Jim Van Stone

President of business operations at Monumental Sports & Entertainment, which owns the Washington Capitals, Wizards, and Capital One Arena, who testified that Ticketmaster is a 'great business partner'.

Eric Budish

A University of Chicago professor who testified as an expert witness, saying Ticketmaster has a genuine competitive edge, though he admitted to being paid over $1 million by Live Nation.

AEG

Live Nation's competitor, which the company accused of trying to suppress testimony that would have shown its ticketing system was inferior to Ticketmaster.

U.S. Department of Justice

The federal agency that initially led the antitrust trial against Live Nation, but reached a settlement with the company a week into the trial.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“'Their professionalism and the way they treat partners is outstanding. Ticketmaster … that has met all our needs. We believe in the fact that an exclusive relationship [with Ticketmaster] is better for us.'”

— Jim Van Stone, President of business operations at Monumental Sports & Entertainment

“'This blatant attempt to dissuade a witness from providing truthful testimony through intimidation is intolerable.'”

— Live Nation's lawyers

What’s next

The trial will continue on April 6, with the potential for closing statements and the start of jury deliberations in the next week.

The takeaway

Live Nation is trying to convince the jury that its dominance is the result of providing superior service, not anti-competitive behavior. The company's accusations of witness intimidation against the government suggest it believes this argument could be pivotal in swaying the jury.