Live Nation Appeals Antitrust Verdict Amid Calls for Ticketmaster Sale

Live Nation challenges US antitrust verdict, as states call for Ticketmaster sale

May 26, 2026 By Murray Stassen

Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster are seeking to have the jury verdict in their antitrust case thrown out, arguing in court filings last week that the result was “against the clear weight of the evidence” and tainted by prejudicial evidentiary errors.

The motions, which you can read here  and  here , were filed on Thursday (May 21) in the  US District Court for the Southern District of New York , the same day that a coalition of  33  states and the  District of Columbia filed their own remedy proposal seeking the divestiture of Ticketmaster .

The dueling filings mark the opening of a new phase in the landmark case, which saw a jury on April 15 find that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally monopolized primary ticketing at major US concert venues and overcharged consumers by $1.72 per ticket.

In memoranda of law filed alongside the motions, Live Nation and Ticketmaster set out their case for overturning the verdict on two tracks: a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 , and a separate motion for judgment as a matter of law  under Rule 50(b) .

Across the two filings, the defendants argue that the verdict should be set aside on multiple grounds: that it is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence; that the trial was marred by the admission of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence; that errors in the jury instructions led the jury astray on the law; and that the plaintiffs failed to prove core legal elements of their claims, including properly defined relevant markets and anticompetitive effects.

The companies are represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP .

The case is being heard before Judge Arun Subramanian .

The 25 -day trial, which featured testimony from 50 witnesses, began on March 2 .

A week later, the US Department of Justice reached a settlement with Live Nation that allowed the company to retain ownership of Ticketmaster .

The majority of states rejected the deal and pressed on with the trial.

In their filings, Live Nation ‘s attorneys argue that the plaintiffs “changed the subject to fans” because they lacked evidence of harm to venues and artists – the parties the defendants characterize as the customers in the relevant markets.

“Hours of trial time were spent on prices for lawn chairs and parking,” the filings state.

“Phrases like ‘robbing them blind, baby’ and ‘velvet hammer’ were Plaintiffs’ mantras.”

The filings argue that plaintiffs relied on “decades-old conduct” in the absence of evidence of recent threats or acquisitions, and told the jury about ticket prices and ticketing practices in Europe despite the fact that the relevant markets were limited to the United States .

“None of this evidence should have come in, and its devastating impact became more apparent as the trial progressed,” the filings state.

“Without it, there is little chance the jury would have returned the same verdict.”

On jury instructions, the filings take aim at the court’s definition of anticompetitive effects, arguing the instruction allowed the jury to find harm based on “constrained consumer choice” or conduct that restricted competitors, rather than requiring evidence of changed prices, output, or quality.

The defendants cite the Supreme Court ‘s rulings in Ohio v. American Express Co. and NCAA v. Alston in support of their position.

On the tying claim – which found that Live Nation required artists to use its promotion services in order to play at its amphitheaters – the filings argue the jury was told that a “policy of tying products together” could itself prove coercion, a standard the defendants say was overruled by the Supreme Court ‘s 1984 ruling in Jefferson Parish .

“There is no evidence of any artist who was actually coerced into purchasing Live Nation’s promotion services that the artist either did not want at all, or might have preferred to purchase elsewhere on different terms,” the filings state.

The filings also challenge the admission of testimony from Live Nation ‘s competitors regarding venues’ “concerns” about losing concerts if they switched ticketing providers, characterizing this as “rank hearsay” that was used to fill an evidentiary void where “precious little evidence of actual threats or retaliation” existed.

The filings reference post-verdict comments from the jury foreperson, who told the legal newsletter Big Tech on Trial that internal messages and their tone “stuck in the head of everybody as evidence.”

The same foreperson reportedly singled out plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz as having been particularly persuasive on the question of consumer overcharges – testimony the defendants argue should never have been presented to the jury.

The DOJ sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May 2024 , joined by attorneys general from dozens of states and the District of Columbia .

In a statement responding to the states’ remedy proposal filed the same day, Live Nation EVP of Corporate & Regulatory Affairs Dan Wall said the states’ request was “performative and political.”

“The jury verdict in this case cannot support a request for divesting Ticketmaster from Live Nation ,” Wall said, according to Billboard .

The states’ remedy proposal asks for “an order requiring Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster , such that it is capable of restoring competition for primary ticketing contracts with major concert venues,” as well as the sale of a number of Live Nation -owned amphitheaters.

As MBW previously reported , whether Judge Subramanian orders a full divestiture, more limited structural remedies, or enhanced behavioral conditions remains an open question – one that the new trial motion is now designed to delay or upend entirely.

Separately, Live Nation is also facing regulatory pressure overseas: the UK ‘s House of Commons Business and Trade Committee on Sunday (May 24) called on the country’s competition regulator to launch a full market investigation into the company’s dominance of the UK live music industry. Music Business Worldwide

_Originally reported by [Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/live-nation-and-ticketmaster-seek-to-overturn-antitrust-verdict-as-states-call-for-ticketmaster-sale/)._