A high-profile jury verdict against
Live Nation illegally monopolized the live events industry and overcharged fans for tickets to music performances, a federal jury in Manhattan concluded on April 15. Private plaintiffs will now argue that Live Nation can’t attempt to relitigate many of the same facts found in the states’ case.
The verdict shows other courts “that there was a violation of the law, that there was an adjudicated process that led to a finding of liability,” said William Kovacic, a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
“Even if the facts don’t match up precisely with other cases, I think this tends to give other trial judges a sense of confidence that they are not going way out on a limb if they find liability themselves,” said Kovacic, now a George Washington University law professor. “It’s nice, I think, to have some company.”
Some of the private cases predate the Justice Department’s 2024 case against Live Nation, which later settled mid-trial. The states then resumed the trial, seeking a breakup of the company.
Taylor Swift fans sued in the US District Court for the Central District of California in 2023, saying they were victims of the concert ticket sale debacle for Swift’s Eras tour due to the company’s unlawful conduct.
The Swifties are “ecstatic that a jury has spoken what we all know to be the truth"—that the company is a monopoly that exploits consumers, said Jennifer Anne Kinder, a Dallas attorney who represents the plaintiffs.
“It’s confirmation, it gives us confidence,” Kinder said of the verdict. “It really is just step one in a process of dismantling and changing the way ticket sales occur in the United States.”
Live Nation didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The company in an April 15 statement said it will soon renew its motion to address liability theories in the states’ case and will appeal any unfavorable rulings.
“The jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” the company said.
Class Action
Another case, a certified class action, is further ahead procedurally than the other private suits and slated to go to trial in 2027.
The verdict is a “vindication for a lot of hard work and a lot of views that people have had for many, many years at this point,” said Adam Wolfson, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP who represents the ticket purchasers in the class suit along with his co-counsel Kevin Teruya.
The class action, along with the states’ case, both bring antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, Wolfson said.
“We both are basing that on the same core set of facts and our allegations about the markets are virtually identical,” he said. “Did they act anticompetitively? There is a strong chance that we are going to get issue preclusion on that in our favor.”
He also noted that the damages model in the private class action against Live Nation is “multiples” of the states’ damages model.
Jurors in the states’ case found that the company’s conduct caused concert-goers to overpay by $1.72 per ticket, and Live Nation in its statement said it shouldn’t owe more than $450 million in damages.
Attorneys for plaintiffs in a separate consumer case against Live Nation in the Southern District of New York, and another brought by the defunct ticketing firm Fanimal Inc. in 2025, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
‘Major Tailwind’
The Live Nation verdict sets up an argument for collateral estoppel, a legal doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided in a prior action, said David Gringer, an antitrust partner with WilmerHale.
Private plaintiffs can now invoke the doctrine on questions relevant to their cases based on the verdict, he said.
“There is going to be a lot here that is potentially estopped,” Gringer said. “If you’re a private plaintiff, you just got a major tailwind behind you from this jury verdict. And if you’re Live Nation, now there is a big headwind.”
But Live Nation won’t simply “swallow the defeat,” Kovacic said. An appeal could drag out the litigation process for years, he noted.
“They are going to say there wasn’t monopoly power and the conduct was not improper,” Kovacic said. “They are going to fight on both of the traditional fronts of monopolization litigation, and I suspect there will be a disputed remedy as well.”
The states are seeking to unwind the deal that combined Live Nation and Ticketmaster in 2010. And while private litigants tend to want damages, they can also ask for injunctive relief, Kovacic said.
“The whole reason the states pressed ahead here was to get a divestiture,” he said.
Live Nation is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP in the class action and the states’ case.
The class action is Jeanene Popp, Luis Ponce, and Jacob Roberts v. Live Nation Entertainment, C.D. Cal., No. 2:22-cv-00047.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.