Judge Denies Live Nation's Request to Move Antitrust Case Out of New York

Entertainment giant Live Nation and its ticketing subsidiary Ticketmaster were hit with an antitrust lawsuit by the Department of Justice and 39 states earlier this year, alleging monopolistic business practices. While the music conglomerate hoped to move the case to Washington, D.C., a judge has officially ruled to keep the case in New York.

Live Nation asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to move the case from his Southern District of New York court to the District Court for the District of Columbia earlier this year. The defendant’s attorneys argued that the D.C. district has jurisdiction under the consent decree that has been in effect since Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged back in 2010. The DOJ claimed that when the companies merged, the consent decree “failed to restrain Live Nation and Ticketmaster from violating other antitrust laws in increasingly serious ways.”

Live Nation’s attorneys noted in the motion that the DOJ’s case is essentially a rehash of the consent decree itself, rather than anything new implied by the multiple violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act the government is arguing have taken place since the companies merged. Furthermore, they argue the DOJ has no right to pursue a separate legal action against the merger — as the consent decree was agreed to in 2010 and then extended again in 2019 — so, the case must be brought back to Washington, D.C. to re-negotiate the consent agreement for a third time.

However, the plaintiffs argue that the case extends far beyond the consent decree, and as Live Nation’s two rival ticketing companies — StubHub and SeatGeek — are headquartered in New York City, the change is unnecessary.

“This case belongs in New York, a city that has long been a hub in the live music industry for artists, fans and industry participants,” the motion reads. “New York is home to two of Ticketmaster’s few competitors twenty-plus entities from the parties’ initial disclosures, numerous amphitheaters and arenas, material non-party and party witnesses, and defendants’ largest office outside of California.”

Earlier this month, the entertainment giant has filed a motion to dismiss two parts of the suit.

Two-thirds of the state plaintiffs are seeking treble damages via a legal doctrine — allowing the states to act on behalf of citizens harmed by Live Nation’s alleged practices. However, in a motion filed late Wednesday, Live Nation argued that the alleged conduct would not harm consumers; if proven, Live Nation said this conduct would harm venues, promoters, artists, and competitors — rather than ticket buyers.

Live Nation said the alleged consumer harm isn’t probable and has “almost nothing to do with consumers or the ticketing fees they pay.”

“The premise of their claim appears to be that in a world in which their marginal costs went down, venues would respond by gratuitously reducing prices for consumers rather than pocketing the incremental profit,” the motion notes. “That would certainly be a surprising result from an economic perspective.”

Additionally, in the motion, Live Nation is trying to dismiss a claim by the DOJ that alleges the promoter engages in “illegal tying”– a practice in which a buyer’s purchase is conditional on the purchase of something else. While the DOJ alleges Live Nation does not permit artists to play its owned and operated amphitheaters unless they agree to use Live Nation as a promoter, Live Nation denies this.

As a part of the motion, Live Nation has requested oral arguments before Judge Arun Subramanian.

The entertainment giant has already sought to have many portions of the case dismissed entirely, but is clearly pursuing multiple angles of attack against the sprawling lawsuit seeking to break it up after more than a decade of allegations of anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior. They’ve also fought to keep key corporate officers — including antitrust czar Dan Wall — able to access all discovery files in legal filings made earlier this year.