Live Nation Pushes DOJ for Antitrust Case Settlement as Core Monopoly Claims Head to Trial

Company claims court ruling effectively ends chance of breakup, but key allegations remain unresolved

Published on Feb. 28, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Live Nation has publicly called on the U.S. Department of Justice to settle its antitrust case, arguing that a recent court ruling dismissing some of the government's claims effectively ends any realistic path toward a breakup of the company. However, the judge allowed several central claims to proceed to trial, including allegations that Live Nation holds monopoly power in large amphitheaters and used that control to coerce artists into using its promotion services.

Why it matters

The Live Nation antitrust case is a high-stakes battle over the company's dominance in the live music industry. A settlement could allow Live Nation to avoid a trial and potential structural changes, while the DOJ and state attorneys general argue the case should proceed to determine if the company's practices have harmed consumers and competition.

The details

In a blog post, Live Nation's Dan Wall argued that divestiture is rarely imposed in monopolization cases and that, following the court's dismissal of the DOJ's concert promotion market theory, there is 'no serious argument' left for separating Live Nation's promotion business from Ticketmaster. However, the judge wrote that 'a reasonable jury could certainly find that artists were coerced into going with Live Nation as their promoter to get into its amphitheaters,' suggesting the core vertical integration theory remains alive. The case now turns on questions about Live Nation's exclusive ticketing contracts, alleged retaliation against venues and partners, and whether control over amphitheaters gave the company leverage over artists and promoters.

  • The court issued its ruling earlier this week, dismissing certain DOJ claims before sending the case to trial scheduled for March.
  • DOJ Antitrust head Gail Slater stepped down from her leadership of the department pursuing the monopoly case last week, which is widely believed to have been influenced by Live Nation's lobbying efforts.

The players

Live Nation

An American entertainment company that specializes in live events, artist management, and ticketing services. It is one of the largest live music companies in the world.

U.S. Department of Justice

The federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, including the Antitrust Division that is pursuing the case against Live Nation.

Gail Slater

The former head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division who stepped down from her leadership role in the Live Nation case, which is widely believed to have been influenced by Live Nation's lobbying efforts.

Pam Bondi

The Attorney General who reportedly clashed with Gail Slater over the Live Nation case, leading to Slater's resignation.

Arun Subramanian

The U.S. District Judge presiding over the Live Nation antitrust case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Cases in this posture nearly always settle. With the prospect of structural relief off the table, that is what should happen in this case now.”

— Dan Wall, Executive Vice President of Corporate & Regulatory Affairs, Live Nation (Live Nation blog post)

“A reasonable jury could certainly find that artists were coerced into going with Live Nation as their promoter to get into its amphitheaters.”

— Arun Subramanian, U.S. District Judge (Court ruling)

“Congrats to the team @JusticeATR; proud of you.”

— Gail Slater (X (Twitter)

What’s next

The antitrust case against Live Nation is scheduled to go to trial on March 2, with the most consequential allegations about the company's integration of promotion, venue ownership, and ticketing remaining in play.

The takeaway

The Live Nation antitrust case remains a high-stakes battle, with the company pushing for a settlement while the DOJ and state attorneys general argue the case should proceed to trial. The outcome could have significant implications for competition and consumer choice in the live music industry.