LN Settlement Faces Objections as Judge Reviews; UMG Completes Buyback

The public comment period for the settlement between Live Nation and the Department of Justice closed Sept. 4 and there was a last-minute flurry of objections to the deal from Live Nation and Ticketmaster competitors and long-time opponents.

The public comment period is required by the Tunney Act, the Nixon-era legislation designed to give judicial oversight to antitrust settlements and prevent corruption. Under that law, U.S. District Judge Arun Subrmanian must approve the agreement. He has said he’s likely to make his decision on the settlement between mid-September and mid-October.

AEG claimed in its filing that the proposed settlement “does not break Ticketmaster’s grip; it tightens it” because under its reading of the settlement, the requirement that Ticketmaster allow venues to rebid their deals still allows Ticketmaster to keep 85% of the market and only opens up about 170 events to bid. Further, both AEG and SeatGeek said the requirement that Ticketmaster open up its backend to rival ticketers still allows Ticketmaster to collect fees on the sales.

“In other words, the only ‘competition’ the Proposed Decree appears to create is competition to sell Ticketmaster tickets on Ticketmaster’s own system,” AEG’s filing says. “But of course that is not competition at all.”

Meanwhile, SeatGeek says the settlement does nothing to assuage the belief of venues that if do not use Ticketmaster, they’ll lose Live Nation shows.

SeatGeek said if offered “retaliation insurance” to eight venues to cover the risk of losing LN tours.

Louis Messina, in a filing for Messing Touring, said that he was unable to get Live Nation to return his calls starting in 2024 and was unable to book his artists in LN-owned amps.

“Ultimately none of the artists were able to use the promoter they wanted. For example, Old Dominion was forced to route through other venues and the tour underperformed because they could not play Live Nation amphitheaters. Live Nation agreed to let the Lumineers play in the amphitheaters, but only if I was not involved. Shawn Mendes’ agent also had to negotiate directly with Live Nation because Live Nation was not returning my calls,” the veteran promoter wrote. “I was in discussions to promote Mumford & Sons, but the band was forced to use Live Nation because that was the only way they could access Live Nation’s amphitheaters. Similarly, when I spoke with Parker McCollum and his team, their first question was, ‘What about the amphitheaters?’ That question captured my dire situation. If Live Nation prohibits artists from using me to promote their amphitheater shows, I cannot compete. I will not be able to help developing artists build their careers.”

Messina said Live Nation did begin working with him again after the settlement was filed. He says the provisions in the settlement related to amps don’t solve the problem.

“It requires Live Nation to give up booking arrangements at thirteen venues, many in secondary markets that cannot support an actual tour. Based on Pollstar data, these 13 venues accounted for fewer than 200 shows in 2025—less than one-half of one percent of Live Nation’s total annual show count. Live Nation would still control the top-grossing amphitheaters in the country necessary to route an amphitheater tour. And nothing in the consent decree prevents Live Nation from continuing to grow its control over new amphitheaters in the future,” Messina wrote.

He said the settlement is too permissive and that it allows LN to put undefined holds on dates at its venue which could still block rival promoters.

Messina also said that without a break-up of Ticketmaster, Live Nation will continue to dominate the touring market.

“Live Nation can throw monopoly money at artists in the form of big guarantees—more money than any other promoter can offer. Live Nation does not even care if a tour loses money because they are making a billion dollars on the massive ticketing fees. As a result, Live Nation has either bought or driven out of business most of the independent promoters in this country. I know Live Nation argues that those promoters are just complaining because Live Nation is willing to pay artists more. That is not true. What we are complaining about is Ticketmaster stealing a billion dollars from the artist and the fans with its massive ticketing fees. I could compete with Live Nation if it did not have its monopoly money. Other independent promoters could start competing again too. And artists would make more money because Live Nation would have to compete just like everyone else,” he wrote. “Sure, Ticketmaster should earn a reasonable profit, but the majority of the billion dollars belongs to artists or back in fans’ wallets. The consent decree is a problem because it does not do anything to fix that monopoly money. Ticketmaster uses its exclusive contracts and its billion dollars in ticketing fees to drive all of us out of business. If you want to fix the music industry, you have to fix the monopoly money. But the consent decree keeps that monopoly money flowing to Live Nation.”

NIVA also urged Subramanian to reject the settlement.

“The jury’s verdict creates an historic opportunity to restore competition to a market in which Live Nation’s power has been allowed to encroach across multiple parts of the live entertainment ecosystem for decades,” wrote Stephen Parker, Executive Director of NIVA. “The proposed consent judgment will not rein in Live Nation’s illegal monopoly, is not in the public interest, and should be rejected.”

NIVA proposed that when Subramanian sets penalties — a separate process from the Tunney Act review necessitated by the dozens of states that pushed forward with a trial and ultimately won a jury verdict that Live Nation and Ticketmaster did in fact operate as an illegal monopoly — he should restrict Live Nation and its entities from promoting more than half of a tour’s domestic dates; divest Ticketmaster and Live Nation’s artist management division; and ensure than penalties paid to the states by LN be at least partially earmarked for independent venues.

In a statement to Music Business Worldwide , Dan Wall, LN’s EVP of Corporate & Regulatory Affairs, said “AEG and SeatGeek are Live Nation‘s competitors, and their filings advance their own commercial interests, not those of artists, venues or fans. Much of what they say misrepresents the settlement’s terms.

“The Department of Justice negotiated this settlement and has said it delivers meaningful relief for consumers. Nothing in these filings changes our confidence that the court will approve it.”

UMG Wraps Buyback

Universal Music Group quietly announced the end of its share buyback program in which the label repurchased some 16.6 million of its own shares for €250 million ($291 million). That’s that the last of three repurchase runs by the major in which it spent €999.2 million ($1.16 billion).

Shares of UMG are trading at near-record lows.

_Originally reported by [Pollstar](https://news.pollstar.com/2026/09/15/the-biz-objections-roll-in-as-judge-reviews-ln-settlement-umg-wraps-buyback/)._