States Say Live Nation Built ‘Moat Around the Castle’ in Closing Arguments as Antitrust Case Goes to Jury

Federal antitrust claims against Live Nation and Ticketmaster moved into closing arguments Thursday, with attorneys for the states using their final presentation to argue that the company’s own words and conduct showed a monopolist protecting its dominance in ticketing and concert promotion.

The evidentiary phase of the closely watched New York trial is now over, and jurors heard final arguments and instructions from Judge Arun Subramanian as the case moved toward deliberations. Key endgame matters remain pending, however, including Live Nation’s renewed Rule 50(a) bid for judgment as a matter of law and other reserved issues that were detailed in TicketNews’ earlier coverage of Thursday’s trial posture.

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

Speaking for the 34 state plaintiffs, attorney Jeffrey Kessler urged jurors to focus on what he cast as unusually candid internal evidence from Live Nation and Ticketmaster executives, repeatedly returning to a phrase that has anchored much of the states’ case: “Documents do not lie.”

According to live courtroom reporting from Inner City Press, Kessler thanked jurors for their service during the lengthy trial and told them the states had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Live Nation and Ticketmaster violated antitrust law. He then walked jurors back through a series of internal records and witness confrontations that plaintiffs say exposed how the company viewed its own market power.

Kessler reportedly highlighted testimony involving executives including Jennifer Johnson and Bob Roux, arguing that when confronted with their own writings on the stand, company witnesses at times tried to soften or distance themselves from the plain meaning of those documents. That, he suggested, was something jurors should weigh heavily in judging credibility.

The states’ closing also revived some of the trial’s most memorable internal language. Kessler reportedly told jurors that CEO Michael Rapino had built “a moat around the castle,” and described Live Nation’s conduct using phrases that have surfaced repeatedly in evidence and argument throughout the case: a “velvet hammer,” “boil the frog,” and “rob them blind, baby.”

RELATED: Unsealed Exhibits Show Ticketing Executives Mocking Fans, Boasting of Upsell Charges | States Put Live Nation’s Rapino at Center of Ticketmaster Strategy as Testimony Focuses on Ticketing Demands, Venue Leverage, and “Velvet Hammer”

“Who talks like this?” Kessler reportedly asked. “I’ll tell you: monopolists.”

That rhetoric was paired with a more conventional antitrust argument aimed at the elements jurors must actually decide. Kessler reportedly told the panel they would be asked to determine whether the states proved unlawful monopolization in the relevant primary ticketing and concert markets, and whether the company maintained that power through exclusionary conduct rather than legitimate competition.

A major part of that case, according to the states’ summation, is that barriers to entry remain high and switching costs for major venues are substantial. Kessler reportedly pointed jurors toward economist Dr. Nicholas Hill’s conclusion that monopoly power existed in the key ticketing markets at issue, while also invoking statements from Live Nation leadership that plaintiffs say amounted to practical admissions about the company’s ability to shape or control the market.

Among the statements highlighted in court, Kessler reportedly pointed to language attributed to company leadership about pursuing a strategy that “capitalizes on our size” and asserting that “we alone can move the market” — phrasing the states say reveals how Ticketmaster understood its own scale and leverage.

That closing theme appears designed to simplify a complex record. Over weeks of testimony, the states have tried to persuade jurors that Live Nation’s dominance was not just the result of scale or business success, but of a broader system of pressure, lock-in, and retaliatory leverage that made it difficult for venues and rivals to escape the company’s orbit. Thursday’s summation distilled that theory into a more direct proposition: Live Nation’s executives repeatedly described the machinery of monopoly in their own language.

The day began with Subramanian instructing jurors not to consider win-loss data, and also referencing limits related to the testimony of economist Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz. Those rulings fit the broader late-stage pattern already outlined in prior TicketNews reporting: Live Nation has not yet won dismissal of the surviving claims before verdict, but it has continued pressing to narrow the case, the evidence the jury may rely upon, and the scope of any eventual remedy.

After months of litigation and weeks of testimony, plaintiffs used their closing to argue that Live Nation’s alleged monopoly was hiding in plain sight — reflected not only in market structure and expert analysis, but in the company’s own internal vocabulary. Whether or not the jury will agree with that, or if the court will rule in favor of Live Nation’s latest gambit to win the case before the jury even weighs in, will be decided in the coming hours, or days.

Previous USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial Coverage from TicketNews

– 4/9: Live Nation Mounts One Final Push to Kill Antitrust Case Before Jury Takes Over – 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