Live Nation Trial Presses Fees, Conditioning, and Consent-Decree Questions Ahead of Rapino Testimony

The antitrust trial against Live Nation and Ticketmaster continued Tuesday with the remaining states sharpening some of the case’s most politically and legally potent themes: that Live Nation’s business still relies on conditioning, leverage, and fee extraction despite years of consent decrees and prior government oversight meant to prevent exactly that kind of conduct.

Tuesday’s proceedings helped crystallize how the states are trying to frame Live Nation’s conduct for the jury now that DOJ and some states are out of the case. Through testimony from current and former Live Nation executives, the states continued to build their narrative around amphitheater dominance, venue pressure, ticketing rebates, and internal behavior that they argue shows the company has long operated as though the formal limits imposed on it simply do not matter.

At the same time, the settlement itself continues to cast a shadow over the trial. Judge Arun Subramanian’s recent reminder that settlement-related communications must be preserved and disclosed under Tunney Act procedures remains an important backdrop — especially as related developments outside the courtroom are adding fresh weight to concerns about how the DOJ’s Live Nation deal came together in the first place.

Baker testimony keeps focus on fees and fan treatment

One of the most notable moments Tuesday came with testimony from Ben Baker, the Live Nation executive whose internal Slack exchanges have already drawn widespread attention after becoming public.

Unearthed last week when unsealed as part of the trial, those messages included comments mocking fans and boasting about ripping people off on ancillary items. On Tuesday, according to courtroom updates from Inner City Press, Baker did not meaningfully dispute the underlying language. Instead, he reportedly described the messages as “indefensible,” acknowledged there was “no excuse” for the way he spoke, and characterized the conduct as immature.

All rise!
Live Nation's Bob Roux still on the stand.
LN's lawyer: Plaintiffs asked you about your comments about the Red Mountain acquisition – what were you saying about competition 10 years ago in Alabama?
Roux: I'd have to look at it (laughs)

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) March 17, 2026

That testimony matters because it moves the story beyond the exhibits themselves. The issue is no longer just that the messages exist, but that a current senior Live Nation ticketing executive was confronted with them in open court and, at least according to the courtroom reporting, admitted their indefensibility while also indicating that no punitive action had been taken against him. In fact, Baker has been promoted since the time of those messages – though it is certainly possible that they were unknown to his superiors until they surfaced in the case.

The exchanges also appear to have given the states a direct path back into one of the trial’s consumer-facing themes: how fan-paid fees and venue add-ons are structured, justified, and defended inside the company. According to the courtroom thread, Baker was questioned about fee ranges, facility maintenance fees, fan-paid surcharges, and the internal language surrounding premium parking and closer-access products.

Submitted Evidence: Documents Related to Fees Structures & Revenue Sources

Campana testimony points back to conditioning and ticketing leverage

The states also used testimony from former Live Nation concerts executive Mark Campana to keep the case focused on conduct that appears to collide with the company’s long history of antitrust oversight.

According to the live updates, Campana was questioned about a 2019 Jonas Brothers tour episode in which Live Nation allegedly told venues they needed to drop AXS if they wanted the tour. When pressed on that conduct, Campana reportedly described it as “out of line.” But the questioning did not stop there. The states also elicited testimony that nobody was fired over the incident and that a promotion later followed.

That is the kind of evidence the states clearly want jurors to sit with: not simply that improper conditioning may have occurred, but that it allegedly occurred inside a company already operating under consent-decree restrictions intended to stop that kind of behavior.

Campana was also questioned, according to the courtroom thread, about ticket bumps and service-charge arrangements in which fans paid added per-ticket amounts while Live Nation retained the rebate value. That testimony helps connect the venue-power story to the fee story, reinforcing the states’ broader theory that Live Nation’s control over promotion, venues, and ticketing gives it multiple ways to extract value from the same transaction.

Perhaps most strikingly, Campana was reportedly confronted with a “don’t email and let DOJ see” exchange – indicating that he had used text messages to convey these kinds of messages to clients, rather than email. It is clear that the states were looking to paint a picture of a company that knows it has regulators paying attention due to its longstanding pattern of coersion and threats leading to consent decrees, but tries to avoid detection of those exact same behaviors continuing to this day.

Submitted Evidence: “Either we are together or we are competitors” / “Velvet Hammer”

FURTHER COVERAGE: USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial

• Trial Resumes; States Press Amphitheater Case, Judge Presses Settlement Disclosure Obligations
• 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

Roux testimony continues the amphitheater-control narrative

Tuesday also continued the states’ push to tie Live Nation’s market power to its dominance in large amphitheaters.

As reported from the courtroom, Robert Roux was pressed again on the company’s control of major outdoor venues and on internal language about using leverage in markets where Live Nation owns or operates the only large amphitheaters. The reported testimony that Live Nation controls the only large amphitheater in roughly 40 markets is especially significant because it gives jurors a clearer sense of how concentrated that piece of the business may be.

That line of evidence has become increasingly important as the trial moves forward. The states appear to be arguing that Live Nation’s amphitheater position is not just one part of the business, but a source of leverage that can influence promotion terms, venue competition, artist routing, and ticketing decisions.

That same theme was already visible in Monday’s testimony and related reporting, including discussion of the “velvet hammer” approach to competitors and concerns about not letting smaller rivals “encroach from the edges.” Tuesday’s continued focus on Roux suggests the states see amphitheater control as one of the strongest remaining anchors of the monopoly case now that the trial is proceeding without DOJ.

Submitted Evidence: “Use The Leverage”

The trial keeps circling back to conduct the decrees were supposed to stop

Stepping back, one of the clearest through-lines from Tuesday is that the remaining states are not treating the case as though it exists in a vacuum.

Again and again, the testimony they appear to be emphasizing goes to the same basic proposition: Live Nation has for years been subject to antitrust constraints, public scrutiny, and consent decrees telling it not to condition access, not to retaliate, and not to use its integrated power in ways that distort competition — yet the evidence the states are surfacing continues to point back toward precisely those kinds of behaviors.

For context, Live Nation Entertainment entered into a consent decree as part of the approval process of its merger with Ticketmaster nearly 20 years ago. After years of allegations of widespread violations of that decree, the Department of Justice investigated and found multiple instances of violations of that decree during the first Trump administration. That led to a modified and extended consent decree put into place in January 2020 to settle those issues and extend the decree for a further term. Live Nation and Ticketmaster remain under that decree to this day.

That is what gives Tuesday’s testimony weight beyond the specific witnesses. The states are not merely trying to prove that Live Nation is large. They are trying to show that the company’s business culture and operating decisions reflect a longstanding comfort with pushing past boundaries it was already told not to cross. Repeatedly.

Tunney concerns remain a live issue as the settlement story keeps widening

Even as the trial continues, the settlement track remains a parallel and increasingly important story.

Judge Subramanian’s recent order reminding settling parties that they must preserve and disclose communications relevant to the proposed consent judgment under Tunney Act procedures continues to loom large. That directive already looked important Monday. It looks even more important now.

As TicketNews reported earlier Tuesday, a new filing in the HPE-Juniper merger case is giving fresh shape to concerns that politically connected companies may be seeking softer antitrust outcomes by routing around career enforcement staff. That filing does not prove the same thing happened in the Live Nation case. But it does make the fears surrounding the DOJ’s surprise Live Nation settlement look far less theoretical.

And that concern is no longer confined to outside critics. As TicketNews also reported Tuesday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar is now explicitly targeting antitrust-settlement review through new legislation after calling the Live Nation deal weak and warning that consumers got “the raw end of the deal.” Her proposal would expand disclosure requirements, strengthen judicial review, and make it easier for states to continue cases when the federal government voluntarily exits.

Against that backdrop, the judge’s insistence on preserving and ultimately disclosing settlement-related communications takes on even greater significance. The remedies themselves are not the only question anymore. The process by which those remedies were reached is becoming part of the story.

A state-led trial is taking on a more defined shape

Tuesday’s proceedings suggest the post-DOJ phase of the trial is no longer just an improvised continuation. It is becoming a more clearly defined case of its own.

The remaining states are still pressing the same broad monopoly theories, but they are doing so with a sharper emphasis on conduct: pressure on venues, pressure on rivals, fee extraction from fans, and internal decision-making that appears to treat legal limits as manageable obstacles rather than meaningful restraints.

That focus makes sense. The company’s size alone may not be enough to persuade a jury. But testimony that ties dominance to conditioning, rebates, threats, and internal awareness could be much more powerful.

And with Michael Rapino expected to take the stand Thursday, the states appear to be setting the table for one of the most consequential stretches of the trial yet.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE from TUESDAY TESTIMONY