Weaponizing Billie Eilish? Venue Execs Testify Live Nation and Ticketmaster Leveraged Tours to Harm Competition in Antitrust Trial

The Justice Department’s antitrust case against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster moved from sweeping opening statements into the granular, venue-by-venue mechanics of the government’s theory on Wednesday, as jurors heard sworn testimony describing what witnesses viewed as retaliation threats when major venues explored switching away from Ticketmaster.

The accounts — centered on Brooklyn’s Barclays Center and Minnesota’s Xcel Energy Center — put in public, under oath, allegations that have followed Live Nation and Ticketmaster for years: that the world’s largest concert promoter and the dominant primary ticketing provider can function as a single lever in negotiations, creating pressure on venues to stick with Ticketmaster even when competing ticketers offer better economics or technology.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster deny the claims, arguing venues make independent business decisions in a competitive marketplace and that switching ticketing platforms carries real operational and commercial risks. But Wednesday’s testimony gave jurors concrete narratives to evaluate — including a recorded call involving Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, and claims that tour routing decisions and ticketing interoperability were used as pressure points after a venue changed providers.

TicketNews USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment updates:
Government Frames Ticketing as “Broken” While Ticketmaster Claims Fair Play
USA vs. Live Nation – What You Should Know as Trial Gets Underway

Barclays Center: a tense call, a “veiled threat,” and the Billie Eilish example

John Abbamondi, former CEO of BSE Global — the company that operates Barclays Center — testified about Barclays’ decision to move its ticketing business from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek in 2021 after soliciting proposals from multiple providers. Abbamondi said Ticketmaster’s economics were not as strong as competing offers and that SeatGeek’s pitch, including technology and deal terms, helped clinch the choice.

But the decision to switch ticketing vendors did not occur in a vacuum. Jurors heard part of a recorded call in which Abbamondi attempted to notify Rapino while also trying to preserve Barclays’ separate concert relationship with Live Nation as a promoter. Abbamondi described himself as “the nervous guy” on the call and Rapino as “the angry guy,” and said the conversation “went sideways” as tensions rose over contract disputes and the larger relationship between the companies.

In the call, Rapino could be heard referencing the opening of UBS Arena — a new competitor venue in the New York market — and suggesting it would become difficult to bring shows to Barclays. Abbamondi testified he took the remark as a “veiled” or “not-so-veiled” threat: if Barclays cut ties with Ticketmaster, Live Nation-controlled tours could be steered elsewhere.

Abbamondi told jurors that after Barclays moved to SeatGeek, the arena experienced what he described as a dramatic decline in Live Nation-promoted concerts. He cited Billie Eilish as a particularly striking example. A concert initially slated for Barclays in 2020 was canceled amid the pandemic. When Eilish returned to touring, her New York-area date was booked at UBS Arena instead. Abbamondi said he was told it was the “artist’s decision,” but testified that when his team reached out to Eilish’s management, they received a different explanation — that the routing decision was Live Nation’s.

In addition to the alleged touring leverage, Abbamondi described what he characterized as operational resistance after the switch — including instances where Live Nation would not accept SeatGeek barcodes, requiring ticket-holders to manually exchange tickets. He described it as Ticketmaster “pulling up the drawbridge behind them,” a metaphor for shutting off cooperation once a venue left the Ticketmaster ecosystem.

Minnesota Wild: “credible threat” testimony and “retaliation insurance”

Jurors also heard testimony from Mitch Helgerson, the chief revenue officer for the Minnesota Wild, who described the pressure venues perceive when considering a move away from Ticketmaster in markets where Live Nation-promoted shows are a major part of the business.

Helgerson testified that when the Wild explored a competing proposal from SeatGeek during contract negotiations, Ticketmaster executives warned that Live Nation could move concerts to a competing venue — the Target Center in Minneapolis — if the Wild’s venue switched ticketing providers. Helgerson said the venue viewed it as a “credible threat,” and that losing those shows would have been “almost catastrophic” for the organization.

The testimony also highlighted a striking market response to that perceived risk: SeatGeek offered what was described as “Live Nation retaliation insurance,” promising to compensate the venue if Live Nation-routed concerts landed elsewhere on open dates. Even with improved financial terms — Helgerson said the arena could have made more money by switching — the organization ultimately stayed with Ticketmaster, with the fear of losing Live Nation concert supply presented as a central reason.

The broader theme: sworn accounts of an “integrated” pressure point

Taken together, the witnesses’ stories align with the government’s core contention that Live Nation’s dominance in promotion — paired with Ticketmaster’s entrenched role in venue-facing primary ticketing — creates opportunities for conduct that would not be available to a stand-alone ticketing company.

In the government’s telling, venues aren’t simply choosing among software providers. They’re weighing whether the act of leaving Ticketmaster could jeopardize the tours and routing relationships that keep buildings profitable. Even if no one puts an explicit threat in writing, the government argues, the market can be shaped by what venue executives believe will happen if they defect — and by whether competitors have to price in “retaliation risk” just to compete.

Live Nation disputes that narrative, and defense questioning sought to raise alternate explanations: switching ticketing systems is complex; there are legitimate integration and usability drawbacks; new venues like UBS can change routing economics; and personal relationships and unrelated disputes can color how executives interpret tense conversations.

Still, Wednesday’s testimony offered jurors a direct view into the exact mechanism the government wants them to see: that the combined power of the globe’s largest event promoter and the globe’s largest primary ticketing provider can be perceived as a single negotiating force — one that can steer concert supply, shape contract outcomes, and deter switching even when rivals offer better financial terms.

Not a new allegation — but newly placed under oath

The claims aired Wednesday are not new to the public record. They echo arguments made repeatedly by competitors and critics since the 2010 merger and the subsequent consent decree intended to prevent retaliation.

In fact, Barclays itself has been a flashpoint in prior public debate. During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s high-profile ticketing hearing in January 2023, SeatGeek CEO Jack Groetzinger told lawmakers that venues fear losing Live Nation concerts if they do not use Ticketmaster, arguing that behavioral restrictions had failed and that only a structural remedy could restore competition.

Groetzinger also discussed the Barclays situation specifically, pointing to public reporting that Barclays saw a decline in Live Nation shows after SeatGeek took over ticketing — and describing how Barclays later explored the idea of keeping SeatGeek for basketball while allowing Ticketmaster to handle concerts. Live Nation President and CFO Joe Berchtold disputed the retaliation framing, telling senators the New York market had simply become more competitive with the opening of a new venue and insisting Live Nation had records showing no retaliatory show placement.

What is different now is the setting and the standard: these claims are being tested in a courtroom, before a jury, with witnesses under oath and recordings and documents entering evidence. For a case that has long lived in industry rumor, lobbying battles, and consent-decree disputes, that shift matters.

What to watch next

If the first days of testimony are a guide, the trial’s heartbeat will be a succession of “switching stories” — detailed accounts of venues that explored leaving Ticketmaster, what they were offered by competitors, what they believed Live Nation could do in response, and how concert supply and operational cooperation changed after decisions were made.

The jury will ultimately have to decide whether the witnesses’ interpretations reflect unlawful coercion and monopoly maintenance — or whether they are seeing ordinary competitive dynamics, business friction, and coincidence through the harsh lens of a highly controversial corporate relationship.

TicketNews will continue publishing regular Trial Watch recaps as testimony continues.