Live Nation Antitrust Case Reaches Closing Arguments

Prosecutors cite internal documents showing company's 'monopolist' language, while Live Nation argues it is simply a 'fierce competitor'.

Apr. 9, 2026 at 8:38pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic studio still life featuring sleek, premium music equipment arranged in a minimalist, editorial composition to represent the competitive forces at play in the live entertainment industry.Symbols of the live music industry's power struggle take center stage in this high-stakes antitrust case.Brooklyn Today

The high-profile antitrust case against concert giant Live Nation, which includes Ticketmaster, reached closing arguments on Thursday. Prosecutors cited internal documents with phrases like 'robbing them blind' and 'velvet hammer' as evidence of the company's monopolistic behavior, while Live Nation's lawyers argued the company is simply a 'fierce competitor' in a large and growing industry.

Why it matters

The case, brought by the Justice Department and 34 states, is a major test of antitrust enforcement and the live entertainment industry's power dynamics. A ruling against Live Nation could lead to the company being broken up or facing other penalties.

The details

The core of the case involves accusations that Live Nation has pressured artists to use its promotions arm and forced venues to sign exclusive deals with Ticketmaster, stifling competition. Live Nation's lawyers argued the company's market power is not illegal and that the overall live music industry remains highly competitive.

  • The trial has been ongoing for six weeks.
  • The case was initially brought by the Justice Department almost two years ago.

The players

Live Nation

A concert giant that includes Ticketmaster, the dominant ticket seller for major concert venues.

Jeffrey L. Kessler

A lawyer representing the 34 states that have brought the antitrust case against Live Nation.

David R. Marriott

A lawyer representing Live Nation in the case.

Michael Rapino

The longtime CEO of Live Nation, who testified during the trial.

Judge Arun Subramanian

The federal judge presiding over the case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Who talks like this? What type of company uses this language? The answer, I think you will find, is a monopolist who views itself to be above the law.”

— Jeffrey L. Kessler, Lawyer for the 34 states

“This has been a trial by snippet and by insinuation. Live Nation did not condone those statements in any way, shape or form — they were wrong.”

— David R. Marriott, Lawyer for Live Nation

“We are big. That is not against the law. We are fierce competitors.”

— David R. Marriott, Lawyer for Live Nation

“The idea of business in general is that you want to build a better mousetrap than the other guy.”

— Michael Rapino, CEO of Live Nation

“Who are the mice they are seeking to trap? They are the mice. They are the ones who suffered the consequences of the defendant's unlawful conduct.”

— Jeffrey L. Kessler, Lawyer for the 34 states

What’s next

If Live Nation is found liable of violating antitrust laws, the judge will decide whether to break up the company or determine another remedy. The states are also seeking monetary damages.

The takeaway

This high-profile case is a major test of antitrust enforcement in the live entertainment industry, where Live Nation has become a dominant player. The outcome could have significant implications for competition and consumer prices in the concert business.