Dual Ticketmaster Cases Signal an Integrated Enforcement Model

Two high-profile federal cases against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary—one led by the Federal Trade Commission and the other by the Department of Justice—are proceeding on separate tracks but moving toward a shared destination: a more integrated, structure-focused model of monopoly enforcement.

On Jan. 6, Live Nation moved to dismiss the FTC’s consumer-focused suit, challenging the agency’s use of Section 5 of the FTC Act to reach Ticketmaster’s pricing and disclosure practices. On Jan. 30, the FTC responded, along with a supporting brief by seven members of the US Senate. Just weeks earlier, DOJ had filed a detailed brief urging a federal court to allow its monopolization case to proceed on the strength of an extensive evidentiary record, including documentary, testimonial, and economic evidence.

On Feb. 18, US District Judge Arun Subramanian largely rejected Live Nation’s bid for summary judgment, allowing core monopolization and tying claims to proceed to a March jury trial in the Southern District of New York.

Just days later, Live Nation and Ticketmaster filed an emergency motion asking Subramanian to pause the trial and certify an interlocutory appeal, arguing that two of his key legal conclusions were “legally wrong” and should be reviewed by the Second Circuit before any jury is seated. The motion followed—and quickly superseded—a now‑deleted public post by Live Nation executive Dan Wall titled “It’s Time to Move On,” which urged DOJ to settle and abandon any breakup remedy.

Live Nation has continued to press public policy arguments with the executive branch—including lobbying the Trump administration for price caps on ticket resales, which antitrust critics say would undercut these antitrust cases—but it has had little visible effect on enforcement posture.

For antitrust practitioners, the important takeaway isn’t whether those policy overtures succeed. The deeper signal is how the FTC and DOJ are structuring their cases, sequencing their arguments, and defining remedies—a playbook that’s likely to be deployed in sectors far beyond live entertainment.

The FTC’s Strategy

The FTC’s lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster centers on the agency’s authority under Section 5 to address what it characterizes as unfair and deceptive practices embedded in the ticketing ecosystem.

Live Nation’s motion to dismiss squarely contests that approach, arguing that the pricing and disclosure theories in the complaint stretch Section 5 beyond its proper scope and fail to plausibly allege deception. While the US Supreme Court in 1972 indicated that the reach of Section 5 extended beyond the Sherman Act, Live Nation may be looking for a reconstituted SCOTUS to rule differently.

Beneath the doctrinal debate lies a notable strategic shift. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Live Nation maintains monopoly power through exclusionary contracts, anticompetitive acquisitions, and other conduct traditionally associated with the Sherman Act, but it uses consumer-facing harms as a key proof of competitive harm. Those harms include:

• Allowing or failing to prevent scalpers’ use of automated “bots” to bulk-purchase tickets in violation of the BOTS Act (codified under Section 5)
• Manipulating pricing and disclosure practices, including drip pricing and opaque fee structures
• Degrading service quality for consumers in ways that allegedly reflect reduced competitive pressure

These aren’t framed as stand-alone consumer protection counts. Instead, they are presented as evidence that Live Nation’s alleged monopoly power is distorting market outcomes. Consumer harm becomes a lens through which the FTC seeks to demonstrate reduced competition.

Regardless of how the motion to dismiss is resolved, the briefing underscores a critical point for practitioners: The FTC is advancing Section 5 as a primary enforcement tool, not merely as a backstop for traditional antitrust claims. For firms with substantial market positions, that has concrete implications.

Compliance reviews can no longer treat consumer protection and competition as separate silos. Pricing architecture, user-interface design, and disclosure timing may now be examined for how they reinforce exclusionary conduct or help maintain monopoly power, even if they don’t independently violate consumer protection rules.

The DOJ’s Approach

The DOJ’s case against Live Nation looks different from that of the FTC on the surface, but it reflects a complementary shift in enforcement philosophy.

In the December memorandum opposing Live Nation’s efforts to narrow or dismiss the case, DOJ told the court it has “reams of evidence” that the company unlawfully monopolized key segments of the live events ecosystem through exclusionary contracting and coercive practices.

The filing is notable for its emphasis on the depth and breadth of the record rather than on early-stage legal skirmishes. DOJ points to:

• Extensive documentary evidence, including internal communications and contracts
• Testimony from market participants across the live events supply chain
• Economic analysis aimed at showing long-term foreclosure and competitive harm

This evidentiary posture reflects a broader enforcement shift under Antitrust Division leadership, including Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, toward fully litigated Section 2 monopolization cases and away from narrow behavioral settlements. DOJ’s remedy framework, which keeps structural relief squarely on the table, reinforces that orientation.

For defense counsel, the practical message is clear: Modern DOJ monopolization cases should be treated as long-horizon litigation from day one. Early motions of practice remain important, but they’re unlikely to truncate a case built on a substantial factual record. Defendants must prepare for sustained discovery, extensive expert work on contracting practices and market structure, and serious remedy debates—not just battles over market definition or short-term price effects.

Shared Signals

The FTC and DOJ actions against Live Nation and Ticketmaster illustrate a growing willingness by federal enforcers to:

• Pursue parallel cases that apply different statutes and theories to overlapping conduct
• Blend consumer protection and competition theories, using consumer harm as part of the evidentiary foundation for monopoly cases.
• Press for remedies that alter market structure—including potential structural relief—rather than simply fine-tune conduct through behavioral commitments

This isn’t just a story about the legal exposure of one company. It’s a policy signal to the antitrust bar. The next wave of enforcement in sectors such as technology, healthcare, finance, and infrastructure is likely to borrow heavily from this playbook, including taking actions such as:

• Integrating consumer-facing design and disclosure issues into competition analysis
• Building monopolization cases around long-term contracting and ecosystem control, not just price
• Treating litigation, rather than settlements, as the default path to reshaping market structure

For practitioners advising dominant firms, the Live Nation cases provide a forward-looking guide to how enforcement is likely to proceed and how compliance strategies should adapt.

Key implications include:

• Recalibrate risk assessments. Evaluate user-interface design, pricing architecture, and disclosure practices not only for consumer law compliance, but also for how they might be characterized as tools to entrench market power.
• Plan for evidence-heavy enforcement. Assume that major monopolization investigations will involve extensive document collection, third-party testimony, and sophisticated economic modeling before any realistic opportunity for early dismissal.
• Think structurally about solutions. Anticipate that such remedies—divestitures, separation of lines of business, or significant changes in contractual frameworks—may be on the table where agencies conclude that conduct remedies are insufficient.

The Live Nation matters are still unfolding, but the signals are already in the public record. For antitrust practitioners, they offer a preview of enforcement’s next chapter—one in which consumer protection and competition law are increasingly fused, and in which defending dominant firms will require a more integrated, forward-looking compliance and litigation strategy.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Thomas Willcox served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a deputy attorney general in the antitrust section and the US attorneys office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a special assistant attorney general.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines