Live Nation Trial Resumes Under State Control; Plaintiffs Press Amphitheater Case, Judge Flags Settlement Disclosure Obligations

The antitrust trial against Live Nation and Ticketmaster resumed Monday with a smaller, state-led coalition pressing forward after DOJ’s abrupt exit, and the first full day back made clear that the core monopoly themes at the center of the case are still very much in play.

Judge Arun Subramanian told jurors at the outset that the United States, along with Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, had resolved their claims, while the remaining states were continuing the case. He also instructed jurors not to draw any inference from the fact that some parties were no longer participating, an effort to limit any prejudice from the sudden shift in the lineup after last week’s settlement shock.

The resumed trial then moved quickly back into substance, with testimony focused on the same issues that have driven the case from the beginning: Live Nation’s control of major amphitheaters, exclusive ticketing arrangements, and the leverage that comes from combining promotion, venue access, and ticketing at scale.

Amphitheater control remains central to the states’ case

The afternoon testimony from Live Nation executive Robert Roux appeared especially important to the states’ core amphitheater theory.

Based on courtroom reporting from Monday’s proceedings, plaintiffs used Roux to reinforce the idea that Live Nation’s dominance in large outdoor venues is not incidental but strategic. He was asked about the company’s control of top amphitheaters, its acquisition efforts, and the role those venues play in the broader concert business. The states’ apparent objective was to show jurors that control of amphitheaters gives Live Nation leverage that extends beyond any single venue deal.

OK – Live Nation trial restarts with states, after DOJ (& some states like Arkansas and Nebraska reach settlements) – Inner City Press is unsealing and covering (Book: https://t.co/AWGleuUu7T global: https://t.co/ftqRRf65dj ) and will live tweet, thread below pic.twitter.com/KXIMsWBZYo

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) March 16, 2026

That theme was sharpened further by testimony and exhibits concerning Red Mountain Entertainment, a regional promoter that Live Nation later acquired. Evidence discussed in court included internal exchanges in which Live Nation leadership weighed whether to steer business to the company before owning it, and one internal description reportedly referred to the company’s approach as a “velvet hammer.” If jurors credit that evidence, it could become one of the clearest illustrations yet of the states’ claim that Live Nation used its scale to keep smaller rivals from gaining traction.

The states also appear to have used company materials to underscore how large Live Nation’s amphitheater footprint had become. One presentation discussed in coverage of the trial described a broad universe of top venues worldwide and highlighted Live Nation’s extensive ownership, operation, or exclusive-booking role across that landscape. That kind of evidence helps convert an abstract monopoly theory into something more concrete for a jury.

Another important plank in the states’ presentation is profitability. Monday’s reporting suggests plaintiffs also drew attention to the rising profitability of large amphitheaters in recent years, a point that helps frame amphitheater control not as a side feature of the business, but as one of its most lucrative engines.

AEG testimony put venue exclusivity and U.S. fees back before the jury

Before Roux took the stand, the resumed trial picked up with testimony from AEG executive Jay Marciano, which returned jurors to another core issue in the case: exclusive ticketing contracts and the way they shape competition.

Marciano’s testimony focused on the practical consequences of venue exclusivity. He described how, when AEG promotes a show in a Ticketmaster-exclusive venue, it can be forced to use a direct competitor for ticketing. He also contrasted the U.S. model with markets abroad, where multiple ticketing services more often operate at a venue and fees can look very different from what American fans are used to paying.

That testimony helps the states tell a simple story: exclusivity narrows choices for promoters, artists, and venues, and it can contribute to higher fees and less flexibility in the U.S. market.

Live Nation’s cross-examination pushed back by emphasizing AEG’s own size and integration. The defense used Marciano to show that AEG, too, has a large entertainment footprint, owns or operates major venues, and participates across multiple layers of the live-event business. That exchange appears designed to leave jurors with a key question that will likely define much of the rest of the trial: whether Live Nation is simply a large competitor in a concentrated business, or something more powerful and exclusionary than its rivals.

FURTHER COVERAGE: USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial

• 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

The states are still defending the damages case

Monday’s developments were not limited to what jurors heard in open court. Off to the side, the remaining states also signaled that they are still very much defending the consumer-damages component of the case.

In a new filing opposing Live Nation’s effort to exclude monetary-relief states’ damages expert Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz, the states argued that her analysis remains relevant because it is tied to the venue-facing primary ticketing market claims that survived summary judgment, rather than to a broader fan-facing market theory the court has already narrowed.

That filing is also notable because it helps clarify that states including South Carolina and Texas remain in the monetary-relief fight, even after the breakup of the broader coalition.

Plaintiffs are trying to block Live Nation’s “good neighbor” defense

Another new filing suggests the remaining states are bracing not only for legal and economic arguments from Live Nation, but also for a softer image campaign aimed at the jury.

In a motion in limine filed over the weekend, the states asked Judge Subramanian to bar Live Nation from introducing evidence of its “community engagement” or altruistic efforts. According to the filing, plaintiffs believe the company may try to highlight things like sustainability efforts, job creation, local revenue contributions, and ticket donations to veterans or military members.

The states argue those themes are irrelevant to whether Live Nation harmed competition and risk confusing or prejudicing jurors by encouraging them to weigh general goodwill rather than the specific antitrust claims at issue. They also pointed to Live Nation’s opening as already leaning in that direction by portraying the company as a kind of civic-minded “good neighbor.”

That motion offers a revealing glimpse into how both sides appear to see the next phase of the trial. The states want jurors focused tightly on market structure, leverage, and competition. Live Nation, at least in the states’ view, may be looking to place more emphasis on its public-facing identity and broader value to communities.

The settlement path is still under scrutiny

Even as the trial proceeds, the settlement track remains alive in parallel — and the judge made clear Monday that it will not simply unfold in the background without oversight.

In a separate order, Subramanian reminded the settling parties that before any proposed consent judgment is entered, federal law requires Live Nation to preserve and disclose communications with the government relevant to the settlement proposal, including emails and text messages, subject to a limited exception for certain counsel communications.

That order points ahead to the Tunney Act review process and suggests the paper trail behind the DOJ settlement may still become a story in its own right.

It also underscores that while some states have now formally moved onto the DOJ deal, the settlement itself is not beyond scrutiny just because the trial has resumed without the federal government.

A new phase of the trial is taking shape

Taken together, Monday’s first full day back suggests the case has entered a new phase rather than winding down.

The plaintiff coalition is smaller than it was before DOJ’s exit, but the remaining states are still pressing the same broad theory: that Live Nation’s control of amphitheaters, promotion, and ticketing gives it a kind of leverage that rivals cannot match. Monday’s testimony indicates they intend to keep building that case through both competitors and Live Nation’s own executives.

At the same time, the procedural fights continue around the edges — over damages evidence, over how Live Nation can present itself to the jury, and over what disclosures may yet be required as the settlement moves toward review.

For now, the message from Monday was straightforward: the case did not collapse when DOJ left. It regrouped, narrowed, and moved back into trial — with the states still trying to prove that the company at the center of the live-events business has used its reach not just to win, but to wall off meaningful competition.