States Seek Ticketmaster Breakup, Live Nation Venue Selloffs After Monopoly Verdict

In a filing Thursday, the coalition of attorneys general who secured a landmark antitrust verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster asked the court to impose a dramatic set of structural remedies — actions that could amount to a significant corporate dismemberment of the live entertainment giant.

The sweeping remedies package, if adopted, could force Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster, sell off large amphitheaters, unwind exclusive arrangements, and pay damages, penalties, disgorgement, and restitution. The filing marks a sharp escalation in the remedies phase of the case, and shows the states pushing for structural relief that goes well beyond the narrower settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Live Nation/Ticketmaster, which remains subject to court review under the Tunney Act.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta previewed that posture during Monday’s Raskin-Blumenthal forum, where lawmakers and witnesses scrutinized the DOJ settlement and pressed for stronger remedies after the states carried the case through trial. Bonta said the states had concluded that prior conduct-based restrictions had failed to constrain the company’s power.

“Behavioral remedies have proven inadequate. It’s time for structural remedies,” Bonta said. “We have requested that. We will request that, whether it be a divestiture of Ticketmaster and a full breakup of the two companies or even a potential separation of the venue and artist management components of the industry. That’s what we need at this point.”

READ MORE: Lawmakers Dissect “Corrupt” Settlement, Press for Breakup at Hearing

That is precisely the direction reflected in Thursday’s filing. The centerpiece of the states’ proposal is an order requiring Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster “such that it is capable of restoring competition” for primary ticketing contracts at major concert venues. The states say they are evaluating what assets, contracts, personnel, and systems would be required for Ticketmaster to operate as a standalone competitor in the market.

The states are also seeking limits on Live Nation’s ability to re-enter the primary ticketing market for major concert venues, along with prohibitions on Live Nation or Ticketmaster conditioning a venue’s access to Live Nation content based on its choice of ticketing platform. That proposed remedy would target one of the core theories of the case: that Live Nation’s control over concert promotion, venues, and ticketing can be used to pressure venues into remaining with Ticketmaster.

Additional ticketing-related remedies would prohibit or limit Ticketmaster’s enforcement of exclusivity provisions in existing contracts with major concert venues and restrict future long-term exclusive primary ticketing agreements. The states argue such relief could give rival ticketers an opportunity to compete for some or all ticketing services at major venues.

The filing also targets Live Nation’s venue footprint, particularly in the amphitheater market. The states propose requiring Live Nation to divest a sufficient number of Live Nation-owned large amphitheaters, along with the cancellation of leases or exclusive booking arrangements, to end what they characterize as both a national monopoly and local monopolies in large amphitheaters.

Other proposed amphitheater remedies include limits on future acquisitions, modification or termination of agreements granting Live Nation control over concert booking, and restrictions on tying artist access to Live Nation-controlled venues to the use of Live Nation promotion services. The states also suggest that Live Nation could be required to make its owned and operated amphitheaters available to non-Live Nation promoters on the same general terms offered to Live Nation itself.

The proposed enforcement structure would include a new independent monitor with broad investigatory powers and real-time access to Live Nation and Ticketmaster business records, communications, executives, policies, and negotiations with venues and artists.

The states are also seeking monetary relief, including damages for alleged overcharges on ticketing fees paid by residents of plaintiff states who purchased tickets to concerts at major concert venues, civil penalties designed to punish violations and deter future violations, disgorgement of profits from ticketing fees charged at Live Nation-owned or controlled venues, and restitution for overcharges.

A separate stipulation filed with the remedies materials confirms that, if a factfinder determines Live Nation or Ticketmaster violated state statutes carrying civil penalties, the companies will not contest that those states are entitled to civil penalties. Live Nation and Ticketmaster may still contest the amount of those penalties, with the court to determine the appropriate figure during the remedies phase.

Live Nation Signals It Will Fight Remedies

Thursday’s filing does not mean a breakup is imminent. Live Nation has already made clear that it intends to fight any remedy that would meaningfully restructure its business, even after the jury verdict.

In a statement issued after the verdict, the company said the jury’s decision was “not the last word on this matter,” and pointed to pending motions that could still reduce, narrow, or eliminate key parts of the states’ win. Those include renewed efforts to obtain judgment as a matter of law on liability, continued attempts to strike the damages testimony that supported the jury’s award, and a likely appeal if those efforts fail.

That posture has continued into the public messaging around potential remedies. Live Nation Executive Vice President Dan Wall, the company’s top legal executive, recently dismissed calls for a Ticketmaster breakup as “both impossible legally and a terrible one,” while arguing that the jury’s verdict was narrower than critics have suggested. Wall said the company is pursuing post-trial motions and will appeal if necessary.

The result is that Thursday’s filing opens what is likely to be a bruising remedies fight rather than a straightforward path to breakup. The states are asking Judge Arun Subramanian to consider divestitures, contract restrictions, venue sell-offs, monetary relief, and a new monitor. Live Nation, meanwhile, is signaling that it will try to shrink the verdict before remedies are imposed, attack the damages foundation, and preserve the DOJ settlement as the practical ceiling for any final relief.

READ MORE: Live Nation Responds to Monopoly Verdict With Defiance, Vows to Fight Jury Findings

READ MORE: After Monopoly Loss, Live Nation Legal Chief Says Ticketmaster Breakup “Terrible” and “Impossible Legally”

States Seek Discovery Into Breakup, DOJ Settlement

Against that expected resistance, the states’ discovery proposal shows how aggressively they intend to build the factual record for remedies that would go well beyond the DOJ settlement. They are seeking updated transaction-level ticketing data, current market data, organizational charts, personnel information, internal or third-party analyses of Ticketmaster divestiture options, potential buyers or spin-off strategies, technical separation of Ticketmaster systems from Live Nation’s promotion and venue operations, and interoperability with third-party ticketing systems.

The states also say they want discovery into the DOJ settlement itself. If Live Nation argues that the federal settlement is sufficient, the states say they need discovery into whether its proposed restrictions would actually restore competition — including whether the 80/20 exclusivity provision would give rival ticketers a meaningful opportunity to compete, how the proposed API would function in practice, and whether the amphitheater-related divestiture contemplated by the settlement is enough.

That scrutiny comes as the DOJ settlement faces mounting pressure from state enforcers, lawmakers, competitors, and consumer advocates who argue that Live Nation and Ticketmaster cannot be effectively policed through another round of conduct restrictions.

In Thursday’s letter to Judge Subramanian, the states warned that waiting for the uncertain Tunney Act process to play out could leave the market in the same condition the jury already found unlawful. The states said the timing of that review could be affected by public comments, motions to intervene, discovery requests, hearings, or changes to the DOJ’s proposed final judgment. Delaying remedies discovery while that process unfolds, they argued, “risks that the competitive harm found by the jury will continue,” and delays relief needed to protect consumers in the plaintiff states.

Bonta’s comments earlier this week also framed the state-led case as a demonstration of how far state attorneys general are prepared to go even when federal enforcement priorities shift.

“Our coalition of blue and red states refused to lose steam without the feds on board,” Bonta said during the forum. “We stayed in the fight, we made our case, and secured a historic and resounding victory on all of our claims.”

He added that the case showed “just how far states can and will go to protect our residents and our businesses from big corporations using their power to illegally raise prices and rip off Americans.”

“And we will do that with or without the federal administration,” Bonta said.

Live Nation’s resistance is likely to become one of the central themes of the next phase. The company’s public position has been that the verdict is subject to further legal challenge, that the damages case rests on evidence it says should be excluded, and that structural separation would be legally and practically unworkable. The states’ filing takes the opposite view: that prior behavioral remedies have failed, that the jury’s findings require relief capable of restoring competition, and that delaying the remedies process risks allowing the same competitive harms to continue.

The filing underscores the widening gap between the DOJ’s settlement framework, Live Nation’s effort to contain the verdict, and the relief state plaintiffs are now signaling they will seek. Where the DOJ settlement has already drawn scrutiny for leaving Live Nation and Ticketmaster largely intact, the states’ proposal places full structural separation — including a Ticketmaster divestiture and potential Live Nation venue sell-offs — directly before the court.

Court Filings: State AGs’ Proposed Live Nation/Ticketmaster Remedies

Plaintiff States’ Initial Remedies Proposal

Plaintiff States’ Letter to Judge Subramanian

Stipulation Regarding Civil Penalties and Expert Testimony