Live Nation, the world’s largest live entertainment company, is facing a lawsuit alleging that the company has abused its market power in the live music industry. The lawsuit was filed in December 2022 by more than 60 artists including Noel Gallagher, Skunk Anansie and Four Tet.
What are the allegations against Live Nation?
The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation has illegally leveraged its dominance in live music to impose unfair conditions on artists. Specifically, it argues that Live Nation’s practices around service fees, cross-platform restrictions and bundles tickets have had anti-competitive effects.
On service fees, the lawsuit claims that Live Nation charges excessive fees on ticket sales that are not sufficiently justified by costs. Artists are forced to accept these fees due to Live Nation’s market power. Cross-platform restrictions refer to contract terms that prevent artists from performing at competing venues. Finally, bundling is when Live Nation only allows venues to host Live Nation shows if they agree to use its ticketing service. This ties up competitor ticketing services.
Key allegations
- Charging excessive services fees on ticket sales
- Imposing cross-platform restrictions on artists
- Forcing venues to use its ticketing platforms through bundling
What is Live Nation’s response?
Live Nation has rejected the allegations, stating that the claims are baseless and driven by lawyers rather than artists. They argue that ticket fees are reasonable, reflecting the costs of providing global touring infrastructure and fan services. Live Nation claims that over 93% of show fees are passed to artists. On cross-platform restrictions, Live Nation says these are used selectively for short periods rather than anti-competitively. Finally, the company emphasizes that its ticketing services provide choice and innovation that benefits fans, artists and venues.
Key parts of Live Nation’s response
- Ticket fees reasonable and mostly passed to artists
- Cross-platform restrictions used selectively, not anti-competitively
- Ticketing services provide consumer benefits
What does this mean for music fans?
If the allegations hold up in court, it could mean changes in how fans buy concert tickets. Greater scrutiny of Live Nation’s practices may lead to lower ticket fees, giving fans access to shows at reduced prices. It could also encourage more competition in ticketing, providing fans with more choices of services. However, Live Nation argues any remedies would make touring more costly and complicated for artists. This could potentially lead to higher ticket prices for fans or some shows not going ahead at all. The lawsuit is still in early stages, so the full impacts remain to be seen.
Potential impacts on music fans
- Lower ticket fees if Live Nation fees deemed excessive
- More ticketing competition and choices
- But remedies may make touring more costly/complex for artists
What are the key facts and figures?
Here are some key facts and figures relating to Live Nation’s position in live music:
Metric | Live Nation Share |
---|---|
Global concert revenue | 70% |
Primary ticketing services | 80%+ in North America |
Concert venues owned/operated | Over 200 globally |
In addition, Live Nation sold 500 million tickets in 2019 worth $29 billion. They own major ticketing platforms like Ticketmaster. Critics argue these leading positions allow Live Nation to impose unfair conditions due to lack of competition.
Is Live Nation a monopoly?
Live Nation has a dominant position in live music, but whether it constitutes an illegal monopoly is debated.
On one hand, Live Nation controls 70% of global concert revenue and over 80% of primary ticketing services in North America. It owns hundreds of major venues and has exclusive booking deals with many more. This suggests strong monopoly power.
However, Live Nation argues the live music industry has low barriers to entry and has become more competitive recently. The company cites competitors like AEG, StubHub and independent promoters. Live Nation also claims venues, promoters and artists have bargaining power during contract negotiations.
Legal experts are divided. Some argue Live Nation has monopoly-like control that harms competition. But others say its dominance is exaggerated and courts may not conclude it is an outright monopoly.
Key perspectives
- Huge market share suggests monopoly power
- But Live Nation says it faces growing competition
- Legal experts divided on whether it meets monopoly threshold
Could Live Nation be forced to break up?
A break up is one possible outcome if the lawsuit succeeds, but less likely than other remedies.
Supporters of a break up argue Live Nation’s vertically integrated business model, spanning promotion, ticketing, venues and artist management, is inherently anti-competitive. Unbundling these units could therefore restore competition.
However, a full break up would be complex to implement and face legal hurdles. Live Nation would likely need to be found guilty of repeated antitrust violations over time. More probable remedies include restricting bundling deals, lowering ticket fees or divesting certain ticketing assets.
But Live Nation has rebutted claims its integration causes anti-competitive harm. The company is expected to strongly challenge any proposal to force it to structurally break up.
Perspectives on potential break up
- Could restore competition by unbundling business units
- But full break up seen as legally difficult to implement
- More likely remedies: end bundling deals, cut fees, divestments
What are the key dates and timeline?
Here is a timeline of key events in the lawsuit so far:
- December 2022 – Lawsuit filed against Live Nation in California federal court
- January 2023 – Live Nation files motion to dismiss
- February 2023 – Artists’ lawyers file opposition to motion to dismiss
- March 2023 – Hearing held on Live Nation’s dismissal motion
- June 2023 – Judge denies full dismissal but drops some claims
- October 2023 – Ongoing pre-trial exchanges and discovery
The lawsuit is expected to continue through 2023 and 2024. Key upcoming dates are the pre-trial conference in early 2024, then a tentative trial date set for mid-2024.
What are the broader impacts?
The lawsuit has sparked wider debate about competition in the live music industry. Some argue it highlights how consolidation has gone too far, enabling harmful monopolistic practices. They want to see stronger regulation to empower artists, venues and fans.
However, others argue the industry changes have largely been driven by technology and changing consumer demand. They worry stricter regulation risks raising costs and hampering innovation, which could damage music access.
Politicians have been divided. Some high profile Democrats have been sympathetic to the artists’ concerns. But Republicans and libertarians have warned against heavy-handed antitrust interventions. Overall the lawsuit casts further doubt on the controversial Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger in 2010.
Broader impacts of the lawsuit
- Sparked fresh debate about live music competition
- Arguments over if regulation has kept pace with changes
- Politicians divided on intervention vs free markets
- Merger with Ticketmaster under further scrutiny
Conclusion
The lawsuit against Live Nation has sparked a legal and political battle over competition in the live music industry. While a full break up of Live Nation seems unlikely, the case could force changes to some of its business practices. However, Live Nation is strongly contesting the allegations of anti-competitive behavior. The final outcome remains uncertain and will likely take over a year to resolve through the courts. Broader debates over regulating highly consolidated industries will continue beyond just this case.