Consumer dissatisfaction with Ticketmaster has become so widespread that Pennsylvania’s attorney general’s office has issued a request for patience from individuals filing complaints against the company. This mounting pressure has prompted over 30 states to pursue legal action, accusing Live Nation-Ticketmaster of unlawfully monopolizing key segments of the concert industry, despite the federal government’s previous settlement of similar claims. It will soon be up to a jury to determine if Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s business practices are not only frustrating but also legally questionable.

An antitrust trial against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, which commenced on March 2nd, is set to conclude this Thursday. State attorneys general, who chose to continue their legal battle after the Justice Department reached a settlement early in the proceedings, took a calculated risk. They aimed to not only secure a victory but also to obtain more significant relief for their citizens and potentially reshape the competitive landscape of the U.S. music touring industry. Their arguments center on claims that Live Nation-Ticketmaster has maintained its market dominance through anticompetitive tactics, such as leveraging its influence in concert promotions and its expansive control over amphitheaters nationwide to pressure venues into using its ticketing services, even when they preferred other options.

In response, Live Nation has countered these allegations by presenting testimony from its employees and other industry figures who attested to the quality of its services and the intense competition it faces. Should the jury find this defense compelling, the Justice Department’s earlier settlement may be viewed more favorably than initially perceived. However, a verdict favoring the states could trigger significant changes within the industry.

The trial has experienced numerous challenges, starting shortly after the Justice Department’s settlement, which left state plaintiffs to proceed independently. The judge expressed frustration with both Live Nation and the DOJ for not promptly disclosing the settlement details, and the agreement itself has faced criticism from concert industry stakeholders and some of the states pursuing their claims.

The jury’s decision could arrive in a matter of hours or take several days, with a potential ruling in favor of the states possibly paving the way for a breakup of the company. Regardless of the outcome, the decision is likely to lead to a lengthy appeals process.

A key narrative during the trial involves a conflict between former Barclays Center CEO John Abbamondi and Live Nation’s Michael Rapino. Abbamondi was the first witness called by the government, questioned by the DOJ while it was still involved in the case. He recounted a phone call where he alleged Rapino made veiled threats to withdraw concerts from the arena unless it continued its ticketing agreement with Ticketmaster. A recording of the call, played in court, captured Rapino’s agitated tone and explicit language, suggesting difficulties in securing tickets or concerts with a new competitor in the market. This type of alleged intimidation led SeatGeek’s CEO to testify about offering venues retaliation insurance as an incentive to switch from Ticketmaster.

When Rapino took the stand, he said his frustration was aimed at a disagreement over Abbamondi’s interpretation of Barclays existing contract with Ticketmaster. He was simply conveying the reality that a new nearby arena would likely take business from Barclays. He claimed Abbamondi was “trying to trap me” by bringing up concert promotion in that discussion, Bloomberg reported, and that he expected a chance to match SeatGeek’s offer and was “caught flat footed” when he was denied one.

The states also called on a Live Nation employee Ben Baker whose internal chats with a colleague bragging about “robbing” fans “blind” with costs for things like parking were exposed during the trial. Baker, now head of ticketing for Live Nation venues, said the 2022 chats were “immature and regrettable,” Bloomberg reported. Rapino condemned the behavior and said he hadn’t been aware of it until this trial, and said he planned to “deal with” the issue that week.

The jury also heard from the CEO of Oak View Group, a venue management company that had a deal with Ticketmaster that incentivized it to steer venues to use the ticketing platform. In a separate case, OVG’s previous CEO, Tim Leiweke, was accused by the DOJ of bid-rigging, which led his company to sign a non-prosecution agreement last year acknowledging the arrangement understood to be with Ticketmaster. (Leiweke was later pardoned by President Donald Trump). On the stand in the monopolization case, current OVG CEO Chris Granger testified that he didn’t know why OVG didn’t disclose the Ticketmaster deal to clients, but that “we should have,” Law360 reported. Even so, he maintained that Ticketmaster is a superior platform to competitors like SeatGeek and AXS.

The states’ economic expert Rosa Abrantes-Metz testified that Ticketmaster keeps, on average, an extra $2.30 for every ticket sold, according to Courthouse News Service, compared to a competitor. Most of that is paid by concertgoers, she said. Her testimony turned into a legal flashpoint when Live Nation accused Abrantes-Metz of committing perjury by saying she relied on the way Ticketmaster internally calculates the portion of a ticket price that it keeps in determining her damages calculations. The company said this is false and moved to strike her testimony, saying that her analysis falls apart without the alleged lie. Judge Arun Subramanian said he’d reserve judgement on her testimony, suggesting it seemed to be more of a misunderstanding, rather than perjury, according to Inner City Press.

Ticketmaster makes its defense

After the states rested their case, Live Nation got a chance to call up its own witnesses to complicate the narrative. Witnesses testifying in its defense said that Ticketmaster offers the superior product on the market, and that battles to promote artists and win venues are hard-fought on the merits. Drake’s manager Adel Nur raved about Live Nation, saying they had the “most fair relationship,” with the promoter who would go “above and beyond to service him,” with multimillion dollar bonuses according to CNS.

Live Nation has to compete intensely to win over artists to promote their concerts, executives argued. The company’s president of touring Omar Al-joulani told the jury that Live Nation has lost out on big names like Morgan Wallen and Bruce Springsteen. “I can’t stress telling you how competitive the business is,” he said, according to CNS. Similarly, when concert venues choose a ticketing platform, Rapino testified, those venues make the ultimate decisions, including on things like exclusivity arrangements. “I don’t tell the billionaire what to do with his venue. He tells me,” Rapino testified, according to Bloomberg, apparently referring to venue owners.

Ticketmaster’s vice president of commercial strategy Jennifer Johnson testified that it’s often clients who want to lock in exclusive deals for longer periods, and that such an arrangement actually presents more risk for Ticketmaster, Big Tech on Trial reported. Jurors have heard from other witnesses that venues may like exclusive contracts for a sense of stability and continuity. Late in the trial, the plaintiffs actually moved to voluntarily dismiss their own claim of unlawful exclusive dealing against Live Nation. On cross-examination, Johnson acknowledged that until at least 2024, sales representatives were incentivized with bonuses to renew venue contracts and extend their terms.

Jurors also got to hear another side of the Barclays Center story from the arena’s chief entertainment officer Laurie Jacoby. Things weren’t going smoothly at the Barclays Center before the arena decided to switch back from SeatGeek to Ticketmaster, Jacoby testified. There were problems when tickets went on sale for The Strokes and My Chemical Romance, she said, according to Inner City Press. That made it difficult to attract artists, which is why they switched back, she said. Other venue executives also described Ticketmaster as a superior choice to competitors on the merits, and Live Nation’s economic expert argued there’s no evidence it’s exercised monopoly power.

Finally, there was yet another conflict between the states and Live Nation over one defense witness who had returned to Live Nation after leaving competitor AEG. Live Nation accused the states of “improperly attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying and/or influence his testimony,” after obtaining information about his departure from AEG. Live Nation asked the judge to sanction the states as a result, which the states charged was an unwarranted attempt at “sweeping, prejudicial relief.” Subramanian partially denied the sanctions request, but reserved judgement on the rest, ordering AEG to explain why he shouldn’t make them pay monetary sanctions for disclosing the witness’ personnel information.

Still, this and other skirmishes took place outside of the jury’s earshot, so it won’t directly factor into their decision. Their determination of whether Live Nation is an illegal monopoly could come down to what they view as a threat or standard business talk. If Live Nation wins, the DOJ’s settlement may look more appealing to opponents. But a finding in the states’ favor could potentially lead to a breakup.