Judge rejects Live Nation bid to toss feds…
A federal decide on Wednesday rejected Live Nation Entertainment’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the federal authorities and many states accusing the company of illegally attempting to dominate the live live performance industry.
The determination by US District Judge Arun Subramanian cleared the way in which for a doable antitrust trial in Manhattan federal court, with jury choice scheduled to start on March 2.
“There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Live Nation has used monopoly power to foreclose competition,” Subramanian wrote.
Fans and politicians intensified their calls for after Ticketmaster subjected Taylor Swift followers to high costs and hours-long online queues for her 2022 “Eras” tour. / SplashNews.com
Live Nation and its attorneys didn’t immediately reply to requests for remark.
Shares of the Beverly Hills, Calif.-based company fell more than 7% in after-hours trading shortly after the choice, before recovering those losses.
The May 2024 lawsuit by the Department of Justice, 39 states and Washington, DC, accused Live Nation of monopolizing markets for ticketing, concert-booking, venues and promotions, harming followers as properly as performers.
Fans and politicians had long urged regulators to re-examine Live Nation’s 2010 buy of Ticketmaster.
A 2024 lawsuit by the Department of Justice, 39 states and Washington, DC, accused Live Nation of monopolizing markets for ticketing, concert-booking, venues and promotions, harming followers as properly as performers. REUTERS
They intensified their calls for after Ticketmaster subjected Taylor Swift followers to high costs and hours-long online queues for her 2022 “Eras” tour.
Subramanian said the federal government plaintiffs can strive to show that Live Nation improperly tied use of its amphitheaters to live performance promotion providers, and illegally dominated the market for ticketing providers to major live performance venues.
The decide also said states can strive to search damages for ticket-buying followers, saying it was “reasonably foreseeable” that followers may need been harmed and that Live Nation’s antitrust-injury problem “falls flat.”
Subramanian dismissed other claims, including that Live Nation monopolized live performance promotions and concert-booking providers at major venues.
In searching for a dismissal, Live Nation denied exercising monopoly energy and said there was no evidence its conduct harmed “consumer welfare,” such as by raising costs or decreasing high quality. It also said states lacked legal authority to sue on behalf of followers.
We present you with the trending topics. Get the best latest Entertainment news and content on our web site daily.
