Live Nation and Ticketmaster Going To Next Phase

Both companies are now entering the next phase of their antitrust loss, one that could determine whether the states that beat them at trial get a fast track toward breaking them up or are instead pushed toward a narrower settlement as the endgame.

The dispute centers on what happens after the verdict. The Justice Department, the plaintiff states, and Live Nation have laid out competing post‑trial paths: one focused on court review of the DOJ’s proposed settlement under the Tunney Act, and the other aimed at allowing the states to immediately pursue broader structural remedies following the jury’s monopoly finding.

The DOJ settlement itself stops well short of requiring Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster. Instead, it relies on a detailed package of conduct restrictions: ticketing‑access rules, venue‑related obligations, an independent monitor, an eight‑year decree term, penalties for violations, and a roughly $280.4 million settlement fund. The term sheet also caps service fees at certain Live Nation‑controlled amphitheaters, mandates support for third‑party ticketing marketplaces, bars retaliation against venues that choose rival ticketers, and unwinds a key ticketing agreement with Oak View Group.

For the states that refused to sign on, however, this is not the end of the case. The core question is whether these conduct remedies are enough after a jury found monopoly power, or whether the court should instead impose structural relief.

What Are They Requesting

Live Nation is urging Judge Subramanian to enter the federal settlement first, then require the states to explain why additional relief is necessary. That sequencing would allow the company to argue that any further remedies should be judged against the “competitive baseline” created by the DOJ decree.

The states strongly disagree. They want discovery available during the Tunney Act review and are asking the court to defer its public‑interest determination until after hearings on their proposed remedies. In their view, assessing both tracks together would avoid duplication, promote efficiency, and prevent conflicting outcomes.

Judge Subramanian now has a pivotal choice. If he allows both tracks to proceed in parallel, the breakup question stays front and center as the court evaluates whether the DOJ settlement truly serves the public interest. If he adopts Live Nation’s approach, the states’ remedy case could be sidelined for months, giving the company time to argue that the federal deal already provides all the relief the market needs.