NewsMay 26, 2026

Live Nation Moves to Undo Monopoly Verdict, Delay Breakup Discovery in Ticketmaster Case

After losing a landmark antitrust verdict to a coalition of state attorneys general, Live Nation and Ticketmaster vowed that the…

After losing a landmark antitrust verdict to a coalition of state attorneys general, Live Nation and Ticketmaster vowed that the fight was not over. In a rash of recent filings, the lawyers representing the entertainment giant are asking the court to essentially conclude that everyone else got it wrong.

The jury got it wrong. The states got it wrong. The evidence was legally insufficient. The market definitions were “novel and bespoke.” The trial was infected by emotional distractions. The damages testimony should not have been admitted. And before the court allows state attorneys general to begin probing whether Ticketmaster should be broken away from Live Nation, the company says the judge should first consider wiping out the verdict or ordering a new trial.

That is the thrust of a new round of filings in the Southern District of New York, where Live Nation and Ticketmaster are seeking to undermine the antitrust loss before the case fully advances into the remedies phase – where the states have made it clear they are seeking to force major changes upon the company- including a breakup.

In a May 21 motion, Live Nation and Ticketmaster asked Judge Arun Subramanian for judgment as a matter of law on all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), a request that would have the court enter judgment for the company despite the jury’s verdict.

The accompanying memorandum argues that the states failed to prove the core legal elements of their claims. Live Nation says that after “25 days of trial and testimony from 50 witnesses,” the evidence the states promised “never materialized.” Instead, the company claims, plaintiffs used trial to “smear Defendants with cherrypicked documents, ancillary issues, and emotional charges.”

The filing is the courtroom version of Live Nation’s post-verdict public posture: the company is not accepting the monopoly verdict as a meaningful judgment on its business model, and is instead trying to narrow, erase, or outlast it.

Live Nation’s central argument is that the states failed to prove anticompetitive effects in the markets that actually mattered legally. According to the company, there was “no relevant evidence of any increase in price, decrease in output, or diminution in quality in any market.” It argues that the states shifted the focus to fans and ticketing fees, even though, in Live Nation’s framing, the relevant antitrust markets involved services to venues and artists. “Fans do not book amphitheaters or buy primary ticketing services,” the company wrote, calling the states’ focus on fan harms “legally irrelevant.”

Live Nation also attacks the market definitions that helped support the verdict. The company says the states created overly narrow “large amphitheater” and “major concert venue” markets that artificially inflated Ticketmaster’s share and Live Nation’s venue power. On ticketing, Live Nation argues the states improperly excluded many venues and sports ticketing opportunities, increasing Ticketmaster’s alleged share from below 50% to 86%.

That argument goes to the heart of the case. The states persuaded a jury that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally maintained monopoly power through a combination of primary ticketing dominance, exclusive contracts, venue leverage, amphitheater control, and retaliation or conditioning threats. Live Nation is now asking the judge to conclude that the jury never should have been allowed to reach that result.

In the amphitheater portion of the case, Live Nation argues that the states failed to prove unlawful acquisition of monopoly power, failed to establish a valid large-amphitheater market, and failed to show that artists were coerced into using Live Nation promotion services. On ticketing, it argues that the states failed to prove valid primary ticketing markets, anticompetitive effects, exclusionary conduct, monopoly power, or damages.

The company separately filed a Rule 59 motion for a new trial, to be considered if the court does not throw out the verdict. That motion argues that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence and infected by evidentiary and jury-instruction errors.

The new-trial filing is even more direct in portraying the case as one driven by emotion rather than law. Live Nation says plaintiffs relied on “stale, irrelevant, and prejudicial evidence designed not to inform, but to inflame and distract.” The company objects to evidence about fan purchases such as parking and lawn-chair rentals, older conduct outside the limitations period, hearsay about alleged threats or retaliation, European ticketing practices, and damages testimony from economist Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz.

One of Live Nation’s main targets is the “robbing them blind baby” Slack message that became one of the most memorable pieces of trial evidence. The company argues that plaintiffs used the message and related evidence about ancillary charges to make Live Nation look bad, even though the materials concerned non-ticketing products such as VIP access, parking and lawn-chair rentals. Live Nation says plaintiffs used that language to provoke an emotional response from jurors rather than prove anticompetitive effects in the relevant markets.

Live Nation also argues that evidence predating May 23, 2020 “pervaded” the trial, including old contract negotiations, acquisition-related materials and venue communications. Without that evidence, the company says, the states would have had little basis for their threats-and-retaliation theory or amphitheater monopolization claim.

The new-trial motion further attacks the jury instructions, arguing that jurors were improperly allowed to find anticompetitive effects based on constrained consumer choice or barriers to entry without proof of changed prices, output or quality. Live Nation also says the court gave flawed instructions on tying, exclusive dealing, market definition, and the distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct.

Taken together, the filings show that Live Nation’s strategy is not merely to appeal later. The company is first trying to convince the trial judge to erase the verdict, then to retry the case if that fails, while preserving a long list of issues for appellate review.

That strategy now collides with the states’ push for structural remedies. The non-settling states have asked the court to consider relief that could include Ticketmaster divestiture, Live Nation amphitheater sell-offs, limits on exclusive contracts, damages, civil penalties, disgorgement and restitution. They also want discovery into the feasibility of separating Ticketmaster from Live Nation and into whether the Department of Justice settlement is sufficient.

Live Nation wants that process slowed down.

In a May 26 letter, the company asked Subramanian not to allow remedies fact discovery to begin until, at the earliest, after the court rules on the judgment-as-a-matter-of-law and new-trial motions. Those motions are scheduled for a July 29 hearing, according to the filing.

Live Nation argues that the states are not seeking the “limited” remedies discovery previously previewed, but an “extraordinarily broad swath of material” across multiple business units, including transaction-level data, divestiture feasibility materials, non-party discovery, and financial data tied to damages, civil penalties, disgorgement and restitution. The company says responding would impose an “enormous” burden across “virtually every aspect” of its business before the court rules on motions that could eliminate or narrow the verdict.

If discovery proceeds at all, Live Nation wants it phased. Its proposed first phase would focus on the relief already obtained through the settlement with the United States and settling states. Only later, if necessary, would discovery expand to additional remedies sought by the non-settling states.

The dispute tees up the next major procedural fight in the case. The states argue that remedies discovery is needed to address the competitive harms the jury found. Live Nation argues that breakup-related discovery should wait while it tries to show the verdict should not stand in the first place.

For the states, the verdict is the basis for a structural reckoning with Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s business model. For Live Nation, the verdict is just another step in a longer fight — one the company insists the jury, the states, and the trial record all got wrong.