The Journal. - The Ticketmaster Breakup Trial Just Got Messier

Episode Date: March 16, 2026

Just one week into the blockbuster antitrust trial between the Justice Department and Live Nation, the two parties reached a tentative agreement. WSJ’s Dave Michaels explores a deal that would allow the dominant concert promoter to keep ownership of Ticketmaster, a potential monopoly the DOJ had been concerned about for years. But for a coalition of state attorneys general who were also part of the original lawsuit, the deal wasn't good enough. Jessica Mendoza speaks to North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson about why he didn’t sign onto the agreement and what he’s looking for as the case continues. Further Listening: - The Trustbuster Taking on Ticketmaster - The Taylor Swift Ticketmaster Debacle Sign up for WSJ’s free What’s News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's one of the biggest antitrust trials in the country, the fight to break up the concert giant Live Nation and its ticketing arm, ticket master. And in the weeks leading up to the trial, our colleague Dave Michaels kept hearing the same thing. I was checking in very often, and I was told, without any doubt, from sources on both sides, it's going, it's on. And when the trial finally began this month, the Justice's the judge was a judge. Department came out swinging. The trial had started on March 2nd, and the first week had gone really well for the Justice Department. They had put on some of their strongest witnesses, people who were talking

about the Justice Department's theory of this case, which is that Live Nation and Ticketmaster kind of work in combination to lock up all parts of this entertainment business. The trial was expected to last months, but after just one week, a bombshell. Live Nation has reached a surprise settlement in its antitrust case with the Justice Department. The two sides now reaching a tentative agreement that avoids breaking up the world's largest live entertainment company. Under this surprise deal, there would be new limits on exclusivity, fees, and venue access. But there would be no breakup of Live Nation and ticket management. So we got a settlement.

Is the case over? Well, the Justice Department was quarterbacking this trial, and they're out of the game now, but that doesn't mean the trial is over. They're going to have to hand the ball off, and it'll continue. Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Jessica Mendoza. It's Monday, March 16th. Coming up on the show, deal or no deal, while the live nation antitrust trial

lives on. This episode is brought to you by Fidelity. You check how well something performs before you buy it. Why should investing be any different? Fidelity gets that performance matters most. With sound financial advice and quality investment products, they're here to help accelerate your dreams. Chat with your advisor or visit Fidelity.ca.ca. Performance to learn more. Commissions, fees, and expenses may apply. Read the funds or ETS prospectus before investing. Funds and ETS are not guaranteed. Their values change and past performance may not be repeated. This episode is brought to you by Volkswagen. Want to go electric without sacrificing fun?

The Volkswagen ID4 is all-electric and thoughtfully designed to elevate your modern lifestyle. It's fun to drive with instant acceleration that makes city streets feel like open roads. Plus, a refined interior with innovative technology always at your fingertips. The all-electric ID4. You deserve more fun. Visit vw.ca to learn more. S-U-V-W, German-Engineered for All. Live Nation isn't just a concert company. As our colleague Dave Michaels puts it,

it's a fortress that was built over time. Not with stone walls, but with contracts, exclusivity deals that give it control over key parts of the live entertainment business. Live Nation has four or five different segments to its business. It promotes tours. It's a promoter. It owns venues.

It owns amphitheater. It owns arenas. It can make money from advertising inside of its venues or at the venues it operates. And then there's ticketing. Tickets are on sale now. And Ticketmaster outlets are in charge by phone.

Live Nation owns Ticketmaster, which has an up to 80% market share in ticketing. The Justice Department's antitrust division sued Live Nation in 2024, alleging it's an illegal monopoly. I mean, there was bipartisan frustration with ticket management. in Live Nation. So there was bipartisan buy-in on the lawsuit. So there were almost 40 attorneys

general who joined the lawsuit. And there were AGs from Republican states like Texas and Tennessee and Utah. A main goal of the antitrust case was to force Live Nation to shed Ticketmaster, opening up the market for more competition. The state attorneys general said they were standing up for residents fed up with junk fees and a ticketing system dominated by Ticketmaster. So Dave, cut to this month, the trial finally begins. Who does the jury hear from? We go into witnesses, and that first witness is John Abamandi, who's running the Barclays Center. He's one of their key witnesses.

He's there to tell the jury that you can't get good shows if you don't use Ticketmaster, and you will feel the threats of Live Nation if you break with the jury. Ticketmaster. To underscore this point, Abamandhi testified about ending an agreement with Ticketmaster in 2021 and switching to a ticketing competitor, Seat Geek. That's when he says his phone rang. Live Nation CEO, Michael Rapino, was on the line. And they played a recording in court between him and Michael Rapino, the CEO of Live Nation.

It was a very testy call. But it doesn't deliver us what we need. I've told you that. I've told you. And the CEO of Live Nation said, You know, going to be a tough time to deliver tickets or concerts with the new competitor in town, regardless of ticketing. A newer venue had recently opened in the New York area, and Abamondi testified that he viewed the call from Live Nation's Rapino as a, quote, veiled threat.

And kind of in a nutshell, that's the government's theory of this case that Live Nation will threaten you until you stick with Ticketmaster. Over the week of testimony, more than you. witnesses spoke about pressure. Seatgeek CEO testified that Ticketmaster's tactics got so aggressive that they had to offer venues something called retaliation insurance. Which means that it would pay the arena in the event that it lost an event because it switched from Ticketmaster to Seatkeek. Wow. So it sounds like things were escalating. And wasn't Michael Rapino, the CEO of Live Nation, set to take the stand as well?

They were supposed to get to Michael Rapino in that second week. That would have been the Justice Department's chance to really grill, frankly, like the executive who's kind of credited with building up this very dominant company and through conduct that the Justice Department says was really anti-competitive. But the Justice Department never got Rapino on the stand. That's because, as it turned out, a deal was being hammered. out behind the scenes. While the jury was hearing testimony, Live Nation was working political back channels, tapping consultants

close to the Trump administration. We were aware that Live Nation had hired some high-profile, very connected advisors, people that it wanted to petition the Trump administration for some kind of a deal. And, you know, I was aware that there was a meeting in the summer of 2025 where Kellyanne Conway, the former counselor to the president in the first Trump administration, had met with several very senior DOJ officials and talked to them about, hey, can't we get to a deal here? Can't we find some off ramp that makes everybody happy? That off ramp came out near the end of that first week of testimony. By Thursday, March 5th, a term sheet that outlawed. a tentative deal had been signed by Justice Department lawyers in Live Nation. According to the settlement agreement, Ticketmaster must allow rival companies like Stubhub and Seatgeek to sell primary tickets using its ticketing technology and cap some of those

frustrating service fees at 15%, but only at Live Nation-owned amphitheaters. Many of the state attorneys general that had also joined the fight were blindsided. They were told they had one day to respond. And the judge overseeing the case didn't even know. about the tentative deal until late that Sunday. He was really mad because it continued the case, even though they had this settlement that the judge felt like he should have been told about. And, you know, he was really irate.

You know, he didn't think it was professional. Like, why wasn't he told? And where did this deal come from? And so what did you learn about where this deal did come from? It's important to remember that in a case like this, there can be two tracks. There can be parallel tracks going. on where the trial team is there to win, win, win. They've gotten what they think are great

witnesses. They're working 24-7. On the other track, in a case like this, you can have the political appointees, the senior people in the Justice Department or maybe in the administration who believe they see a bigger picture. And these people, the Justice Department, high up, are thinking, look, we're here for four years. We need to show that we're doing stuff. We're doing stuff. And we're going, for the voters who put President Trump in office. And if they can get a win now, rather than punting this to the future, they're willing to do that

because their incentives are a little bit different than the trial teams. And so ultimately, to these folks, a settlement is a win. They want to be able to say that they forced Live Nation to change important parts of it. its business. In a statement, Live Nation said the deal would improve the concert experience for

artists and fans throughout the U.S. The company's stock jumped after news of the deal. So right now, it does seem like Live Nation is pretty content. In a call with reporters last week, a senior Justice Department official said that the deal addresses their lawsuit's main concerns about anti-competitive conduct. The official added that the settlement opens at markets and would lead to prices coming down for fans. The deal means that the DOJ will stop pursuing the suit. So will many other state attorneys general who are plaintiffs in the case. But 25 state AGs plus D.C.

say the deal didn't go far enough, and they want to keep fighting. One of them is North Carolina's Jeff Jackson. Technically, we are still at trial. This does not get to the core issue, which is live nations continued control over ticket masks. And to Live Nation, is there anything you would want to say? See you back in court. That's after the break. This episode is brought to you by IG Private Wealth.

When your financial life gets more complex, having a clear plan matters. IG advisors build personalized, integrated financial plans that connect your investments, tax strategies, retirement income, and estate planning into one coordinated plan. They will help you make confident decisions about your wealth and your future. Get financial advice that puts you at the center. Visit IGPrivatewealth.com to find an advisor near you. This episode is brought to you by Volkswagen. Need a vehicle that isn't afraid to make a splash? That's the Volkswagen Tows, capable and confident.

It's fit for everyday life, nimble in traffic, agile and tight spots, and still spacious enough for weekend getaways. While available, 4-Motion all-wheel drive gives confidence in rain and snow, the capable Touse. deserve more confidence. Visit vW.ca to learn more. SUVW, German engineered for all. Just for the record, can you just introduce yourself, please? I'm Jeff Jackson. I'm the Attorney General for North Carolina. Jackson represents one of the states that sued Live Nation, along with the Justice Department.

He says he was surprised when he learned that the DOJ had struck a deal with Live Nation. This is really unprecedented. I mean, we had a group of 40 attorneys general, and U.S. who was the lead in the case, and then USDAJ cut out all 40 AGs and basically did this privately, and then gave us a 24-hour ultimatum as to whether we were going to sign or not. Ultimatum is the word you used. Yeah, I think that's a fair word. A bipartisan coalition of more than 25 states, including New York and Tennessee, rejected the federal settlement, which means their part of the lawsuit isn't over.

The Justice Department may have settled its claims, but those states are continuing, the trial on their own, with help from a star antitrust lawyer. We talked to Jackson late last week about the case and his thoughts on the settlement. If you were to boil us down to one word, the settlement, how would you characterize it? It's inadequate. The core mission for this litigation was to get it live nations control over Ticketmaster. They merged about 16 years ago, and when that happened, it gave Live Nation control over the three main levers in the entertainment industry, which are, the venues, the artists, and the ticketing.

So when they gained Ticketmaster, they sort of completed their triumvirate, and then they can tell concert goers, if you don't accept these ticket prices, you don't get to go see your artists. I am in the middle of a trial right now, and I'm also in the middle of negotiations, so I'm not going to share publicly what all terms we feel are successful, or adequate, rather, but the core goal is fundamentally Live Nation's control over Ticketmaster. Live Nation says it made several significant concessions. A company executive said,

the agreement is a very good outcome for artists and venues, and that people calling it inadequate are not being realistic. So ultimately, what is the problem here? Is it the fact that a deal was reached at all during the trial, or are there specific terms in the deal that don't sit right with you? There are specific terms in the deal. It's not the fact that a deal was reached. Deals are reached all the time in the middle of litigation.

I'm not opposed to it. It's just that this deal was inadequate. Also, I should say the deal itself is really unclear. It's a five-page deal. Normally, with a case of this magnitude, you would expect the deal to have 30 or 40 pages of detail. We really don't know what the deal actually means yet. Let's talk through some of the provisions that we do know about,

and I'd love to hear what you think of them. For example, one of them is that Live Nation has to open amphitheaters it controls to other ticketing companies, and that 50% of those tickets are going to be available to rivals. What's the issue with that? There's a question as to how many amphitheaters we're really talking about, what percentage of the whole that means, and whether Live Nation allowing that would actually mean a significant reduction of their power that would allow real competition. Ultimately, there's not enough competition in the space.

Let me bring up another provision, and this one is something that I think a lot of customers feel strong, about, this deal puts a 15% cap on service fees and add-ons at those amphitheaters. What do you think of it? Well, we really don't know what the deal actually means because there are no details here. However, in principle, we like the idea of there being a cap because clearly there has been a situation where you go to buy an $80 ticket and by the time you check out, it's $130. The core issue there isn't just their willingness to do that. It's their ability to do it because of their total control over ticket master.

Speaking of removing control, Live Nation also agreed to give up exclusive booking rights at 13 amphitheaters. Sure, we'll call that a step forward, but this is a fraction of the total picture here. A lot of those amphitheaters are in secondary markets. I think it's a perfect example of why this is an inadequate deal. I have one more provision to bring up with you, which is that the company is creating a $280 million settlement fund. for the states as compensation for customers who felt like they had to pay too much for tickets. What do you say to that? First of all, we don't know where that money would go.

What is to prevent them if that deal goes through and say we all signed on? What's to prevent them from just raising ticket prices 1% and immediately making up that difference? For all those reasons, Jackson says, the settlement deal doesn't work. So he and other state AGs are picking up the mantle and pressing on with the case themselves. of all the cases you could be taking, Attorney General Jackson. I'm sure there are a lot of issues that are on your desk right now. Why prioritize this one? Why is this one worth the time and the resources? Well, first of all, because my constituents want me to. I mean, I've heard very clearly from them what they think about, Ticketmaster, and these prices that they're being asked to pay,

but also because this sets a really important precedent. We want to show that attorneys general and the law are capable of pushing back against companies that are abusing their power over people, it would be important not just in this case, but for the business community in general to see that we are capable of coming together when the evidence is very clear that the law has been broken and pushing back and changing things going forward, not just with a slap on the wrist, but an actual change that helps actual people. Can't Live Nation argue that it's already solved the problem with the settlement? wouldn't that make the state's case harder to prove in court down the line if you don't reach a deal now?

I don't think so. I think we still have really strong evidence that the fact that Live Nation maintains its control of Ticketmaster means that all the problems we've seen from them over the last 15 years still persist. Last week, the judge unsealed more evidence, including internal Slack messages, in which Live Nation employees called customers, quote, so stupid and joked about, quote, robbing them blind. Live Nation said it was looking into the private messages and that the chats do not represent Live Nation's values. What's at stake here if you can't get a deal or you can't get a win in court? What's at stake here is the experience that millions of people have when they want to take their kid or their loved one or themselves to a concert. What is at stake here is the ability of artists to earn a living and do so with dignity. What's at stake here is whether or not there's actual competition in this marketplace, or we're going to allow a monopoly to essentially drive out all that competition, and then use everybody's lack of options to benefit themselves,

to bonus themselves at our expense. As the trial picks back up this week, our colleague Dave Michaels says there's still a lot to iron out. What happens now, Dave? Could the states that are still in the trial get the breakup they're hoping for? Well, anything is possible, but The states have to win at trial first, and only if it wins there will it get to the next phase where it asks a court to fix the problems that the jury found.

At that point, Live Nation can point to whatever it reached with the DOJ and say, hey, we've already solved the problem. So this has gotten a lot messier. So it sounds like we might be talking to you again. Yeah, I think so. this Odyssey isn't over yet. That's all for today, Monday, March 16th. The Journal is a co-production of Spotify

and the Wall Street Journal. Additional reporting in this episode from Catherine Sayre. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.