Live Nation Pushes to Kill Antitrust Case Before Jury as Closings Arguments Begin in New York

Closing arguments got underway Thursday morning in the federal antitrust trial against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, but the more consequential fight entering the day was over how much of the case would survive intact for the jury to decide.

As closing arguments began Thursday morning in the Justice Department’s antitrust trial against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the sharper endgame battle was unfolding outside the rhetoric of summations: Live Nation is still pressing to persuade Judge Arun Subramanian that large portions of the case should be stripped away before jurors are allowed to decide it.

That effort remains very much alive. In a sweeping renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law filed April 8, Live Nation argued that plaintiffs failed to prove the remaining primary‑ticketing monopolization claim, the amphitheater tying claim, the amphitheater monopolization claim, antitrust standing, state‑law claims, and damages (1403 – embedded below). These make many of the same arguments that a previous motion for judgement made last week, just modified once more as the jury’s potential involvement came closer.

Prior Coverage: Trial Nears Endgame as States Defend Core Monopoly Claims—and Their Expert Damages Model

In practical terms, the filing is a bid to pull the rug out from under what remains of the states’ case at the moment it is supposed to go to the jury.

Live Nation’s brief argues that plaintiffs failed to establish the market definitions underlying their ticketing claims, failed to prove monopoly power, failed to show anticompetitive effects, and failed to demonstrate exclusionary conduct. It also contends that the tying and amphitheater monopoly claims should fail, that the states lack antitrust standing for some of the alleged harms, and that if economist Dr. Rosa Abrantes‑Metz is struck, plaintiffs have no viable damages claim at all.

Subramanian, however, did not hand Live Nation that win before closings began. In an April 8 order (1401), the judge reserved decision on the Rule 50(a) motion, meaning the company did not secure a pre‑verdict dismissal of the surviving claims before the jury heard final arguments.

Court Thread for Closing Arguments Thursday via Inner City Press:

OK- Live Nation closing arguments & jury instructions (& deliberations?) after Drake's manager Nur Inner City Press got declaration to strike Abrantes-Metz' unsealed https://t.co/3MVlrKAAYL
Book 2: https://t.co/ZWDs5UdR05 3d coming; will live tweet, thread below pic.twitter.com/k2FtBvLsZb

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) April 9, 2026

The same order also reserved decision on Live Nation’s motion to strike Abrantes‑Metz, granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike portions of economist Dr. Nicholas Hill’s testimony regarding win‑loss data, and denied in part while reserving in part the sanctions dispute tied to the AEG‑Rick Mueller episode.

That leaves the case entering closings in an unresolved but unmistakably narrowed posture. Live Nation has not yet succeeded in knocking out the core surviving claims. But it has kept sustained pressure on the legal and evidentiary foundations of the states’ case right up to the jury phase.

The Rule 50 filing is especially revealing because it lays out the defense’s preferred endgame in the clearest terms yet. On ticketing, Live Nation argues that plaintiffs’ market definitions are artificially narrow and improperly inflate Ticketmaster’s share by excluding stadiums and large portions of the broader ticketing universe. The company says plaintiffs pushed Ticketmaster’s share from “something below 50%” to “86%” through those market‑definition choices.

From there, Live Nation argues that the states never bridged the gap between accusation and proof. It says there is no legally sufficient evidence of monopoly pricing, no showing of reduced output, and no meaningful proof that Ticketmaster degraded quality while preserving market power. The company also seeks to reframe the states’ most aggressive conduct allegations — threats, retaliation, early renewals, and the Oak View Group relationship — as unsupported, overstated, or beyond the reach of antitrust liability.

That framing matters because it is not just a defensive rebuttal. It is the mechanism by which Live Nation is asking the court to keep the jury from considering the states’ broader monopoly narrative on the terms plaintiffs prefer.

The fight over Dr. Hill’s testimony is a good example. In an April 7 motion, Live Nation argued that Hill improperly acted as a conduit for hearsay when he discussed AXS and SeatGeek win‑loss data to support the claim that venues feared losing concert content if they moved away from Ticketmaster. The filing says plaintiffs were attempting to use Hill’s testimony to prove a “cornerstone” of their case — that Live Nation conditioned content on ticketing.

Plaintiffs responded the next day that the challenge was both waived and wrong on the merits. They argued that defendants had agreed Hill could testify about this analysis during post‑Daubert negotiations, failed to object when he actually testified, and were now attempting to strike the evidence only after plaintiffs had rested. Plaintiffs also said Hill’s treatment of the material constituted proper expert reliance under Rules 702 and 703 and that any dispute went to weight, not admissibility. (1399)

Subramanian’s order granted the Hill motion in part and denied it in part. Even without the judge’s full oral explanation in the docket entry, the practical effect is clear: one component of the states’ proof on concert‑withholding was at least partially clipped before closings.

That result fits a broader pattern that has defined the late‑stage posture of the case. As TicketNews has previously reported, Judge Subramanian substantially narrowed the federal case before trial, and plaintiffs further narrowed it this week by dismissing the standalone Section 1 exclusive‑dealing claim with prejudice.

RELATED: Live Nation Antitrust Case Narrows as Plaintiffs Drop Standalone Exclusive-Dealing Claim

Having had some success at trimming down the states’ case, Live Nation is pressing on with its efforts to eliminate as much potential exposure to actual remedy imposed by the jury before the trial can get there.

Testimony this week from Live Nation’s “experts” further show how Live Nation is attempting to recast the surviving case as one built on weak economics rather than persuasive proof of monopoly abuse. Professor Dennis Carlton’s asserted an “absence of empirical evidence of harm to competition” in plaintiffs’ primary concert ticketing market, challenges both the content‑withholding and exclusive‑contract theories, and argued that high market shares alone do not establish unlawful market power.

Carlton’s testimony also sought to show that Ticketmaster’s margins and take rates were not higher inside plaintiffs’ defined market than outside it, undercutting the claim that monopoly power was used to extract elevated returns in the challenged market.

Further testimony from a different expert on retainer from provided a parallel argument. Professor Ali Yurukoglu’s testimony attacked the states’ “large amphitheater” market as artificially narrow and contended that artists who play those venues perform broadly across other amphitheaters, arenas, stadiums, theaters, and festivals. He concluded that Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s business conduct doesn’t lead to any meaningful harm to performers or artists, specifically arguing against their participation in any higher ticket prices, decrease in ticket availability and shows, or lower artist compensation.

On the last day of witness testimony Wednesday, the defense sought to press its argument that artist‑side loyalty to Rapino, Live Nation, and Ticketmaster not as the product of coercion, but as a reflection of perceived business value.

Meanwhile, the sanctions dispute tied to the Mueller/AEG episode also remains unresolved. Subramanian denied the sanctions motion in part, reserved decision in part, and ordered AEG and attorney Justin Bernick to show cause within ten days why the court should not impose monetary sanctions covering legal fees incurred by defendants or Mueller.

RELATED: Sanctions Fight Opens New Front in Live Nation-AEG War Over Concert Ticketing

Taken together, Thursday morning’s most accurate frame is not simply that closing arguments have begun. It is that the jury phase has opened while Live Nation is still attempting to shrink the case around it.

The company has not yet persuaded the court to end the surviving claims before verdict. But it has succeeded in forcing a series of late rulings and reserved decisions that could still affect what the jury may rely on, what remedies remain available, and what issues are preserved for post‑trial motions and appeal. The states, for their part, are still fighting to keep the surviving monopolization and amphitheater theories intact long enough for jurors to decide whether Live Nation’s conduct crossed the antitrust line.

That is the posture in which closing arguments began Thursday morning: not with final clarity, but with the remaining case still under active judicial compression.

USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Case Documents Referenced

1401 – Order on first 50(a) motion for judgement, Dr. Hill testimony strike efforts, and Sanctions against AEG

1403 – Live Nation’s Memorandum of Law Supporting Motion for Judgement

Previous USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial Coverage from TicketNews

– 4/8: Antitrust Case Narrows as Plaintiffs Drop Standalone Exclusive-Dealing Claim – 4/7: Sanctions Fight Opens New Front in Live Nation-AEG War Over Concert Ticketing – 4/7: Trial nears endgame as states fight 50(a) motion, defend expert testimony – 4/3: Sanctions Sought After Unsealed AEG Email Raises New Questions in Antitrust Trial – 4/2: Live Nation Seeks Pre‑Verdict 50(a) Win as Judge Orders More Trial Records Unsealed – 3/31: Defense Continues Blame Shift, Seeks to Eliminate Prosecution Expert Testimony – 3/30: Live Nation Leans on ‘Better Product’ Defense as States Press Vertical‑Integration Case – Earlier: States Say Ticketmaster’s Verified Fan more Sales Pitch than Solution; OVG Testifies to Undisclosed “Advocate” Payments – DOJ Defends its Settlement of Live Nation Case as “Blueprint” – Judge Demands DOJ/LN Settlement Details be Made Public, Promptly – Trump Personally Pressed for Settlement, Met With Rapino March 5 – After Rapino Fireworks, States Re-center Live Nation Trial on its Use of Leverage – States Put Live Nation’s Rapino at Center of Ticketmaster Strategy – Tech, Venue Leverage, and What Jurors May Not Hear Ahead of Rapino Testimony – Live Nation Trial Presses Fees, Conditioning, and Consent-Decree Questions – Trial Resumes; States Press Amphitheater Case, Judge Presses Tunney Compliance – Most States to Press On with Antitrust Trial, Resuming Monday in New York – Internal Chats Illustrate Holdback, Platinum Pricing Squeeze – Unsealed Exhibits Show Ticketing Executives Mocking Fans, Boasting of Upsell Charges – Judge presses states to negotiate after DOJ’s shock settlement— holdout AGs push for mistrial – Judge Says DOJ, Live Nation Showed “Absolute Disrespect” for Court in Settlement Chaos – DOJ-Live Nation Term Sheet Details Settlement Framework – Live Nation, DOJ Reach Settlement Avoiding Ticketmaster Breakup – Consumers, Policy Groups, and Lawmakers Slam Proposed Settlement – States Plan to Continue Pursuing Live Nation Antitrust Case Without DOJ – Live Nation Says DOJ Settlement Will “Improve the Concert Experience,” Denies Antitrust Allegations – ’I Will Not Be Gaslit’: Consumers React to DOJ-Live Nation Settlement