Live Nation can’t dodge antitrust claims, judge says

MANHATTAN (CN) — A federal judge on Friday denied Ticketmaster and LiveNation’s bid to dismiss antitrust claims against them over their longstanding policy obligating artists to accept their concert-promotion services if they want to play at the companies’ largest amphitheaters.

The Justice Department, along with 30 state and district attorneys general, last year filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, accusing the company of wielding monopolistic control over the presentation of nearly all major live concerts in America. They cited Ticketmaster’s longterm deals with venues and what they described as Live Nation’s monopoly on primary-ticketing markets, large amphitheaters and concert promotion for both venues and artists.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Joe Biden appointee, said federal prosecutors had sufficiently established a claim for tying — a term for agreements under which a party only agrees to make a sale if the buyer also purchases a different product.

“The complaint alleges these elements,” Subramanian said in the decision. “It identifies a tying and tied product — large amphitheaters and Live Nation’s concert-promotion services.”

During oral arguments, Live Nation argued that artists can work through rival concert promoters who rent venues on behalf of the artists. As such, the entertainment companies claim that they have no duty to aid their competitors.

Still, Live Nation’s agreement bars artists from working with the promoter of their choice if they want to play a Live Nation-owned or controlled venue, Subramanian pointed out.

“These allegations aren’t just about a refusal to deal with rival promoters,” Subramanian said. “They are about the coercion of artists.”

Live Nation also argues that artists don’t actually purchase both products: the rental of amphitheaters and the hiring of promoters. Instead, it says artists hire promoters, and promoters rent amphitheaters.

“Live Nation says this is fatal because tying requires that the same consumer — here artists — purchase both products,” Subramanian summarized.

But in the complaint, prosecutors note that promoters act on behalf of the artists when contracting with amphitheater owners. That means artists are in fact the purchasers of both products.

Subramanian seemed to agree on Friday.

“If the evidence shows that promoters book venues on behalf of specific artists, that artists are the driving force behind which venues to book and when, and that artists are coerced into using Live Nation as their promoter if they want access to Live Nation’s amphitheaters, plaintiffs may have a viable tying claim,” he said.

He also found that the states sufficiently established standing on behalf of consumers who claim they were charged supracompetitive prices in the primary-ticketing market because of the entertainment companies’ monopolistic practices.

“The thrust of the complaint is that Live Nation engaged in a variety of exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly over primary-ticketing services, and consumers suffered injury by using those services and getting overcharged,” Subramanian said.

Live Nation controls at least 80% of primary ticketing at major concert venues and maintains a 70% market share in large amphitheater productions. It has become the largest promoter of national amphitheater tours, and prosecutors say it has reaped billions of dollars in additional fees forced onto ticket buyers.

Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

SOURCE: https://www.courthousenews.com/live-nation-cant-dodge-antitrust-claims-judge-says/