Leading Think Tank: Antitrust Case Against Ticketmaster is “Compelling”

The R Street Institute, a leading free-market think tank, recently published a new report titled The Complexities of Antitrust Action Against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The issue brief highlights the complicated nature of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) suit against the ticketing behemoth and, as R Street Resident Fellow Josh Withrow argues, the need for the government to find an equally sophisticated fix “that may not be as simple as those calling to ‘break them up’ might expect.”

In its 2024 complaint, the DOJ accuses Live Nation Entertainment of violations “across a half-dozen connected markets at various levels of the live event chain of supply.” Specifically, the government argues that the company’s market share in large venue ownership, promotion, management and primary ticketing enables it to bully venues and artists into exclusive contracts that illegally exclude competitors.

Withrow writes, the government is working to convince the courts that Live Nation Entertainment’s “substantial share in each of these vertically related markets means that its anticompetitive conduct in one market has ‘synergistic anticompetitive effects’ that deter competition laterally.”

Withrow explains that the DOJ has “compelling evidence” that the company has engaged in anticompetitive behavior, particularly as it relates to Oak View Group, an event/venue management company with whom LNE had arranged not to compete for concert promotion and venues. Oak View Group “actively worked to push venues into signing 10-year contracts with Ticketmaster,” excluding competitors from the process.

Communications between the two companies demonstrate an explicit acknowledgement of this sort of anticompetitive collusion, adding weight to the DOJ’s accusation that “Live Nation is so well known within the industry for threatening to pull its concerts from venues that refuse to sign contracts with Ticketmaster that the threat rarely has to be made explicitly, even via a proxy.” Though, it’s important to note that the DOJ has evidence of explicit threats, as well.

This evidence is likely enough to prove the government’s case, making a variety of potential punishments possible. Notably, the DOJ is seeking to force Live Nation to divest itself of Ticketmaster and terminate its noncompete with Oak View Group. While the evidence may justify the penalty, Withrow argues that proponents of the breakup approach “may be over-estimating the extent to which such action would address the difficulties consumers face when booking live events.”

Withrow reminds us that there are solutions in the free market to many of the problems live events fans experience. And he cautions us that not all the problems in the live events industry can be remedied by antitrust enforcement or an expansion of government authority; rather, a consumer-focused approach is required. Most importantly, if the Antitrust Division can convince the courts that undoing the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger is justified, “the government should have the humility to acknowledge its limitations and let the market take things from there.” 

R Street’s report correctly analyzes the lack of competition in the live events industry, the compelling anti-competitive evidence against LNE and Ticketmaster, and the need for free-market solutions that promote competition. R Street’s full analysis can be read here.