Federal Jury Finds Live Nation and Ticketmaster Act as Monopoly in Antitrust Trial

On April 15, 2026, a federal district court jury in the Southern District of New York found Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated an illegal monopoly that overcharged consumers. The 11-page jury verdict form consisted of “yes” findings on 13 specific antitrust liability issues, 34 specific “yes” findings as to the harm to competition questions as to each of the 34 State plaintiffs, a specific $1.72 overcharge finding as to each ticket sold by Ticketmaster at “major concert venues,” and specific findings of violations of the antitrust, unfair competition, or trade practices acts of California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has ordered the parties to meet and schedule proceedings to determine total damages and other remedies — including a potential breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

The case was originally filed in May 2024 by the U.S. Department of Justice and joined by nearly 40 states. After lengthy pretrial proceedings and discovery, trial began in March 2026. In a surprising move during the trial, the U.S. Antitrust Division and several States entered into a settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster. You can read more about that proposed settlement here: But 34 State Attorneys General did not settle and instead brought the case to a jury with the help of outside trial counsel.

The Verdict

The jury found that Live Nation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act through unlawful monopolization of (i) Primary Ticketing Markets, (ii) the Market for the Use of Large Amphitheaters, and (iii) Concert Promotion Services, as well as Section 1 of the Sherman Act through Unlawful Tying Arrangements.

Monopolization

• Primary Ticketing Markets: The evidence established that Ticketmaster controls approximately 80% of the primary ticketing services to major concert venues and that Ticketmaster willfully maintained that monopoly power through exclusionary conduct.
• Use of Large Amphitheaters: The jury found that Live Nation’s dominance over amphitheater access and its use of that control as leverage across the broader ecosystem constituted evidence of monopoly.
• Concert Promotion Services: Live Nation’s promotion arm handles approximately 70% of major concert promotion nationally, and the jury credited the states’ argument that Live Nation unlawfully tied artists’ use of large amphitheaters to Live Nation's promotional services.

Ticket Prices

• Overcharging: The jury found that Ticketmaster overcharged customers by $1.72 on each ticket sold over a period of several years at major concert venues throughout the country.

Next Steps — Remedies

Judge Subramanian has ordered all parties—Live Nation, the prevailing states, and the DOJ—to confer and submit a proposed schedule for the remedies phase.

On one side, the prevailing state Attorneys General who pursued this case to verdict after the federal government stepped aside will likely press for maximum remedies: financial compensation to harmed consumers, divestiture of Live Nation's venue holdings, and a full corporate breakup separating Live Nation from Ticketmaster.

On the other side, Live Nation will almost certainly argue that the court should look to the March 2026 settlement agreement with DOJ as the appropriate benchmark for remedies. That agreement, which has yet to receive final approval from Judge Subramanian through the Tunney Act process, contemplates a more targeted set of behavioral and structural commitments rather than a full breakup.

This trial verdict and the settlement leave an unprecedented situation. The verdict and the resulting damages and other potential equitable relief will likely be inconsistent with the DOJ settlement, which must be reviewed by the Court under federal law for fairness and whether it is an appropriate resolution. No Court has had to review a U.S. Antitrust Division settlement in the face of this type of jury verdict in the same case. Will the Court allow the settling States and their citizens to be treated differently than those who received a jury verdict? Will any equitable relief—such as the break-up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster or any required changes in conduct and business operations—be across the country, or only in regard to the winning States? How will the Court decide fairness and appropriateness of the settlement in the face of the jury verdict? Stay tuned as all of this develops.