Live Nation Asks Judge to Undo Monopoly Verdict, Claiming Jury Followed “Emotional Arguments” Over Law

In reply briefs filed July 2, Live Nation and Ticketmaster argue the states won with “made-for-juries emotional arguments,” not the market-specific proof required under antitrust law

Live Nation and Ticketmaster are making their final written push to erase, or at least retry, the landmark antitrust verdict won by a coalition of state attorneys general this spring.

In two reply briefs filed July 2 (embedded below), the companies argue that the jury’s verdict should not survive post-trial review because the states failed to prove core elements of their antitrust claims and instead persuaded jurors with what Live Nation calls “made-for-juries emotional arguments.”

The filings do not contain the kind of new factual revelation – unlike the recent disclosure of settlement-related communications with the White House and President Donald Trump. Rather, they elaborate on the fight kicked off as soon as the verdict came in: whether the jury’s decision becomes the foundation for a remedies phase that could include a Ticketmaster breakup, or whether the court sets aside the verdict before that process advances.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster are pursuing two related forms of post-trial relief. The first, under Rule 50(b), asks the court to enter judgment as a matter of law in the companies’ favor despite the jury’s decision. The second, under Rule 59, asks for a new trial if the court does not throw out the verdict outright.

The company’s basic position is that the states won by focusing jurors on consumer anger, old internal documents, disputed evidence about threats and retaliation, and fan-facing fees, while failing to prove anticompetitive effects in the markets that mattered legally.

“Plaintiffs’ opposition is the culmination of their trial strategy: secure the first-ever jury trial in a government monopolization action, prevail at trial with made-for-juries emotional arguments, and then defend the verdict with standard-of-review arguments,” Live Nation wrote in its Rule 50 reply.

That framing goes to the center of the company’s post-verdict strategy. Live Nation argues that the states failed to show that its conduct raised prices, reduced output, or lowered quality for the relevant customers in the alleged markets — namely artists and venues, rather than fans buying tickets, parking, lawn-chair rentals or other ancillary products.

In the amphitheater portion of the case, Live Nation says the states never proved a valid market for large amphitheaters, never showed that artists were locked into using those venues, and never established that Live Nation’s amphitheater control harmed competition. The company points to evidence it says showed artists made more at Live Nation amphitheaters than at arenas, and argues that the states’ theory of reduced output relied too heavily on “dark days” at Live Nation venues.

Live Nation also argues that the states improperly shifted their amphitheater theory after trial. According to the filing, the states’ claim was originally built around acquisitions and booking agreements that allegedly neutralized rivals, but their opposition now leans on the broader assertion that Live Nation controlled the only large amphitheaters in 40 critical markets.

“Perhaps it has,” Live Nation wrote, “but (a) that’s not the claim in this case, (b) most of those acquisitions were decades ago and clearly time-barred, and (c) Plaintiffs have done nothing to prove that having a portfolio of amphitheaters is anticompetitive.”

On ticketing, the company again attacks the states’ market definitions. Live Nation says the states carved out a targeted market of 257 “major concert venues” and a separate market for “primary concert ticketing services” in a way that artificially inflated Ticketmaster’s market share. The company argues that the states did not prove major concert venues had higher prices or worse terms, and says there was no evidence that any ticketing company offers “concert ticketing services” as a distinct product separate from broader ticketing services.

The filing also presses Live Nation’s argument that the states relied on the wrong kind of harm. According to the company, evidence about fan fees, European ticketing practices, and consumer-facing complaints could not substitute for proof that venues suffered higher prices or worse service in the alleged U.S. primary ticketing markets.

“The record in this case shows (a) the total lack of evidence of higher prices to venues, (b) undisputed evidence of falling prices, (c) no reduced output, and (d) no complaints from venues about reduced quality,” Live Nation wrote. “There is no evidence of anticompetitive effects on any metric.”

The company also continues to attack the states’ threats-and-retaliation theory, which was central to the ticketing case. Live Nation says the evidence of actual threats was “thin,” pointing to Barclays Center and Xcel Energy Center as the main examples and arguing that the states relied too heavily on venue “concerns” that they could lose concerts if they switched away from Ticketmaster.

The new-trial reply takes a related but distinct approach. Live Nation says that even if the court concludes there was enough evidence for the case to reach the jury, the verdict was still against the weight of the evidence and infected by evidentiary and instructional errors.

That brief focuses heavily on what Live Nation calls prejudicial evidence. The company objects to the use of fan-facing price evidence, including parking and lawn-chair rentals, as well as evidence about lower ticketing fees in Europe. It also argues that the jury was improperly exposed to stale pre-2020 conduct, hearsay about venue fears, and the now-notorious “robbing them blind baby” message, which Live Nation says plaintiffs used to make the company look bad rather than prove antitrust injury in the relevant markets.

“Of course this evidence was prejudicial; the impact could hardly be more stark,” Live Nation wrote, arguing that plaintiffs repeatedly invoked the phrase and urged jurors to treat it as evidence that Live Nation was a monopolist.

The company also renews its attack on damages testimony from economist Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz, whose analysis supported the jury’s finding of consumer overcharges. Live Nation argues that her model improperly treated Ticketmaster’s retained per-ticket amount as the relevant price while failing to account for upfront payments Ticketmaster makes to venues as part of long-term ticketing contracts.

The reply also argues that the damages model relied on AXS as a comparable competitor across a seven-year period, even though Live Nation says AXS was not of comparable quality to Ticketmaster until at least late 2021. Without the Abrantes-Metz testimony, Live Nation argues, there would have been no basis for the jury’s overcharge finding. Notably – in the time since the motions were filed, a trio of noted economic scholars has filed an amicus brief supporting Abrantes-Metz’s findings.

The states have already urged Subramanian to reject Live Nation’s post-trial motions, arguing that the company is trying to relitigate a case it lost after five weeks of testimony, hundreds of exhibits and four days of jury deliberations. The damages fight has also drawn outside attention, including an amicus brief from prominent antitrust economists defending the states’ treatment of upfront venue payments.

The post-verdict fight is playing out alongside the separate review of the DOJ’s proposed settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster. That agreement, which does not require a Ticketmaster divestiture, was published in the Federal Register on July 6, formally moving the Tunney Act public-comment process forward. The proposed judgment includes open distribution requirements, limits on future exclusive ticketing contracts, amphitheater-related provisions, restrictions on retaliation and content steering, a monitor, and penalties for violations — but it leaves Live Nation and Ticketmaster under the same corporate roof.

That split remains the defining tension in the case. DOJ and the settling states are asking the court to approve a conduct-based agreement. The non-settling states, having won a jury verdict, are seeking broader remedies that could include structural separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation.

Live Nation’s July 2 filings are aimed at preventing that remedies fight from becoming the next main event. If Subramanian grants judgment as a matter of law, the verdict could be wiped out or narrowed. If he grants a new trial, the states would have to try the case again before using the verdict as a basis for major structural relief. If he denies both motions, the breakup fight moves closer to center stage.

For Live Nation, the filings make clear that the company views the verdict not as a mandate for restructuring the live entertainment business, but as a legally flawed result driven by the wrong evidence, the wrong markets and the wrong instructions.

For the states, the verdict remains the central fact: a jury found that Live Nation and Ticketmaster violated antitrust law, and the next phase should determine what changes are necessary to restore competition.

Subramanian has not yet ruled on the post-trial motions or the proposed federal settlement.

Court Filings