A federal antitrust trial targeting Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster resumed Monday in Manhattan after the U.S. Department of Justice abruptly settled its claims against the company last week—a development that forced a rapid restructuring of the case’s legal strategy. The sudden shift left a coalition of state attorneys general, rather than the DOJ, to lead the prosecution, while Judge Arun Subramanian signaled skepticism toward their request for a mistrial. With the new legal team in place, testimony resumed where it left off over a week prior, focusing on allegations that Live Nation wielded its market dominance like a ‘velvet hammer’ against competitors in the live entertainment industry.
Why the DOJ’s Sudden Settlement Forced a Courtroom Shakeup in the Live Nation Case
The Justice Department’s decision to settle its claims against Live Nation on April 19 upended what had been a high-stakes antitrust trial already in its second week. The settlement, which dismissed the federal government’s allegations that Live Nation-Ticketmaster had violated antitrust laws by monopolizing the live entertainment industry, left a power vacuum in the courtroom just as states were preparing to argue their own case. The abrupt withdrawal of the DOJ’s legal team forced the remaining plaintiffs—led by 30 state attorneys general—to quickly reorganize, hire new expert witnesses, and secure critical testimony that had been developed in collaboration with federal lawyers. Their initial panic over whether they could effectively take over the case led them to file a mistrial motion, but Judge Subramanian’s skeptical response and the states’ subsequent hiring of key DOJ-aligned experts prompted them to withdraw the request and proceed without delay.
The States’ High-Stakes Gamble: Can They Fill the DOJ’s Shoes?
The states’ decision to push forward without the DOJ was not made lightly. While the federal government’s exit removed a major legal threat to Live Nation, it also stripped the case of resources, institutional knowledge, and the weight of a nationwide antitrust enforcement action. The states’ new legal team, co-led by Jonathan Hatch of the New York Attorney General’s office and Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn—who previously represented college athletes in the landmark NCAA antitrust case—has spent the past week scrambling to familiarize themselves with thousands of pages of evidence, deposition transcripts, and witness testimonies collected during the DOJ’s earlier phase of the trial. Hatch and Kessler now face the daunting task of proving that Live Nation’s business practices violated state antitrust laws, a task made harder by the absence of the DOJ’s broader legal authority and nationwide scope.
Live Nation’s ‘Velvet Hammer’ Tactics: Internal Emails Reveal Aggressive Competition Strategies
At the heart of the resumed trial is a trove of internal Live Nation documents and witness testimonies that paint a picture of a company using calculated, often ruthless tactics to suppress competition in the live event industry. The term ‘velvet hammer’—coined by Live Nation executives in a 2018 email—has emerged as a defining phrase in the case, describing a strategy of firm yet non-antagonistic pressure to eliminate rivals. During Monday’s testimony, Live Nation’s U.S. concerts president, Robert Roux, acknowledged that the company has aggressively expanded its control over amphitheaters and other large performance venues, often at the expense of independent promoters and artists seeking to book shows.
‘Either we are together or we are competitors.’ — Robert Roux, Live Nation president of U.S. concerts, in a 2018 email exchange about dealing with a rival promoter, Red Mountain Entertainment.
The emails and testimonies presented this week suggest that Live Nation’s approach was not just about expanding its market share but actively discouraging competitors from entering the space. In one 2020 exchange, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino advised against allowing Radio Disney and concert promoter Superfly into a Live Nation-owned amphitheater, even after they offered a contract guaranteeing at least $400,000 in profit. The rationale? Executives feared that permitting third-party promoters into its venues could threaten Live Nation’s dominance. Roux later testified that the comment was not aimed at any specific competitor but reflected a general philosophy of maintaining tight control over the live event ecosystem.
How Live Nation’s Amphitheater Dominance Became a Key Issue in the Trial
One of the central allegations in the states’ case is that Live Nation has systematically acquired or secured exclusive booking rights to the majority of the largest amphitheaters in the U.S., leaving artists with few alternatives for staging major outdoor concerts. Evidence presented this week included a 2018 Live Nation business presentation highlighting its control over 62 of the top 100 amphitheaters worldwide, with green highlights marking the venues it owned, operated, or exclusively booked. Since then, Roux confirmed, the company has added several more to that list. Plaintiffs’ attorney Josh Hafenbrack demonstrated that Live Nation’s grip on the market has only tightened over time, with its share of ticket sales at the top five amphitheaters in the U.S. growing dramatically between 2016 and 2024.
Live Nation has countered that it faces competition from other types of venues, such as clubs, arenas, and festivals, which also host major acts. However, Roux acknowledged in a 2015 email that many non-superstar artists specifically target amphitheaters—many of which are controlled by Live Nation—for their mid-tier tours. ‘There is room for tighter negotiations and deals,’ Roux wrote, suggesting that Live Nation leverages its market power to extract more favorable terms from artists and promoters. The company’s profitability in this segment has surged in recent years, with pre-cost profits from large amphitheaters reaching $386 million in 2024—nearly triple the $131 million recorded in 2019.
The Barclays Center Call: A Case Study in Live Nation’s Alleged Strong-Arm Tactics
Another explosive moment in Monday’s testimony centered on a 2019 phone call between Barclays Center’s then-CEO Brett Yormark and Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino. The call took place as the Barclays Center, a Brooklyn venue that had previously relied on Ticketmaster for ticketing, considered switching to a rival service. According to testimony from Jay Marciano, COO of Live Nation rival AEG, Rapino’s response was blunt: ‘It will be harder for you to get concerts with the new UBS Arena nearby.’ Marciano confirmed that this was a standard tactic in the industry—venues and promoters often pit each other against one another to secure better deals—but the implication was clear: Live Nation’s dominance could make it difficult for competitors to thrive. The Barclays Center ultimately did not switch ticketing providers.
What’s Next? Live Nation’s CEO Looms Large as Trial Enters High-Stakes Phase
With the trial now fully back on track, the next phase promises to be even more contentious as the states call their most high-profile witnesses, including Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino. Rapino’s testimony could provide critical insights into the company’s decision-making processes, particularly regarding its aggressive expansion strategies and its interactions with competitors. Both sides have also indicated that they are streamlining their witness lists to make up for the lost time during the DOJ’s settlement, with closing arguments expected to begin in late May or early June. The outcome of this case could have sweeping implications for the live entertainment industry, potentially forcing Live Nation to divest parts of its business or adopt less restrictive practices in venue bookings and ticketing.
Key Takeaways from the Resumed Live Nation Antitrust Trial
- The DOJ’s settlement with Live Nation last week forced a rapid restructuring of the antitrust trial, with states now leading the prosecution after initially requesting a mistrial.
- Internal Live Nation emails and testimonies reveal a ‘velvet hammer’ strategy of using firm but non-antagonistic pressure to suppress competition, particularly in amphitheater bookings.
- Live Nation’s control over major amphitheaters has expanded dramatically, with the company now dominating key venues that artists rely on for mid-tier tours.
- Testimony about a 2019 call between Live Nation’s CEO and Barclays Center executives highlights allegations of strong-arm tactics to maintain Ticketmaster’s market dominance.
- The trial is expected to wrap up in late May or early June, with Live Nation’s CEO Michael Rapino set to testify in a pivotal moment for the case.
The Broader Implications: How This Case Could Reshape the Live Event Industry
Beyond the immediate legal battle, the outcome of this trial could fundamentally alter the structure of the live entertainment industry. Live Nation-Ticketmaster controls roughly 80% of the primary ticketing market in the U.S., and its influence extends to venue bookings, artist management, and promotions. If the states succeed in proving anticompetitive behavior, Live Nation could be forced to divest segments of its business, open up its venues to more competition, or face restrictions on how it negotiates contracts with artists and promoters. Such a ruling would not only reshape the competitive landscape but also potentially lower ticket prices for consumers, who have long complained about high fees imposed by Ticketmaster.
The case also raises broader questions about antitrust enforcement in industries dominated by a few large players. The live event sector has seen increasing consolidation in recent decades, with Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster creating a near-monopoly in ticketing. Critics argue that the DOJ’s settlement—coming just days after the states were poised to present their strongest arguments—raises concerns about inconsistent enforcement and the risks of allowing dominant corporations to avoid accountability through piecemeal settlements.
What Comes Next? Potential Outcomes and Industry Repercussions
As the trial enters its final stretch, the most likely outcomes range from a complete dismissal of the states’ claims to a sweeping ruling that forces Live Nation to restructure its business. A middle-ground resolution could involve behavioral remedies, such as prohibiting Live Nation from entering into exclusive venue contracts or requiring it to offer more transparent pricing for ticketing services. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already served as a wake-up call for the live entertainment industry, prompting competitors and lawmakers to scrutinize Live Nation’s practices more closely. Meanwhile, consumers and artists continue to grapple with the consequences of a consolidated market, where high ticket prices, limited venue options, and rising fees have become the norm.
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the Live Nation antitrust trial about?
- The trial centers on allegations that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster have engaged in anticompetitive practices, including monopolizing the live event industry through exclusive venue contracts, aggressive tactics against rivals, and control over ticketing services. The case is being led by a coalition of 30 states after the DOJ settled its claims last week.
- What is the ‘velvet hammer’ strategy mentioned in the trial?
- The ‘velvet hammer’ refers to an internal Live Nation strategy described in emails, where the company uses firm but non-antagonistic pressure to suppress competition. It involves tactics like refusing to share venues with rivals, leveraging market dominance to extract concessions, and discouraging third-party promoters from entering the market.
- Who is leading the case after the DOJ’s settlement?
- The case is now being led by a coalition of 30 state attorneys general, with legal teams co-led by Jonathan Hatch of the New York AG’s office and Jeffrey Kessler, who previously represented college athletes in the NCAA antitrust case against the NCAA.
