Live Nation is settling a government antitrust lawsuit — which may not include a breakup

Live Nation-Ticketmaster agreed Monday to settle a federal antitrust lawsuit with the Department of Justice. Eight states have so far indicated they plan to join the settlement, the prosecutor said in court, and the status of four other states remains unclear. The case alleged that it illegally monopolized parts of the live events industry, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers and the closing of venues into exclusive deals. Terms of the settlement have not yet been announced, but have been reported POLITICO and Bloomberg It indicates that it will not force Live Nation to separate from Ticketmaster.

27 states and D.C. will continue to push their case, and have already filed for a mistrial.

The deal reportedly includes about $200 million in damages, as well as requirements for Live Nation to open parts of its ticketing platform to competitors, loosen exclusive ticketing contracts for venues, divest some of the stands it controls, and cap Ticketmaster service fees for stands. This comes after a week of trial in a federal court in New York.

Emily Peterson Cassin, policy director at the Progressive Demand Education Fund, said: In a statement on Monday that “Donald Trump threw Swifties under the bus by settling with the corporate monopoly that cost them tickets for the Eras Tour. He must know ‘very well’ that siding with the giant monopoly to the American people makes him look like ‘the youngest man who ever lived.'”

Taylor Swift and her legions of fans have been at the center of a lawsuit filed against Live Nation and Ticketmaster after the ticketing platform It infamously crashed in 2022 during a preview of Swift’s Eras Tour, which Ticketmaster said had “historically unprecedented demand.” The incident not only angered Swifties, but also drew attention to Ticketmaster’s stranglehold on the live entertainment industry.

Judge Arun Subramanian indicated there were three options for how to proceed: allow the government to continue questioning the AEG COO that the Justice Department was part of during the questioning on Friday, give the states a few days to “reorder the heads,” or grant their request for a mistrial and figure out the rest from there. The court went with something close to the second option — it dismissed the jury until Monday, giving him a chance to review the motion for a mistrial and the states a chance to see if they could get what they needed to continue the trial.

The judge was upset with how the settlement was reached. He said it was “disgraceful” that neither side mentioned the possibility of a settlement until after the jury had been selected. Even David Dahlquist, the Justice Department’s lead lawyer, was unaware of the existence of a signed term sheet detailing the settlement until Monday morning, at the same time the judge was notified. “You are the lead United States attorney and you did not receive this term paper until 6:30 a.m. this morning?” Subramanian asked. “Right,” said Dahlquist.

Subramanian said lawyers for the Justice Department and Live Nation told the court that Antitrust Division Chief Omid Assefi and Live Nation CEO Michael Rapinoe signed the executed term sheet on March 5, a day before the attorney discussed the possibility of a settlement in chambers. The Justice Department was in the process of examining AEG’s COO by the time the trial ended Friday, creating a logistical quagmire over how to proceed. Subramanian said that on Friday morning, neither party had indicated to him that there was already a signed term sheet on the deal. Lawyers for both sides said they were not aware at the time that a preliminary agreement had been signed. “It didn’t have to happen this way,” Subramanian said. “It shows an absolute lack of respect for the court and the jury… It is completely unacceptable.”

Subramanian ordered Asefi and Rapinoe to appear in court at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday to discuss the deal.

Adam Gitlin, a D.C. district attorney, told the judge that he was representing what would soon be known as “plaintiff states” that were filing for a mistrial. in Deposit That settlement was published shortly after the court adjourned, and Washington, D.C., and 27 states wrote that the mid-trial settlement “materially and irreparably harmed the plaintiff States before the currently seated jury, and fundamentally changed the nature of these proceedings, including by jeopardizing plaintiff States’ access to experts, witnesses, trial documents, demonstrations, and necessary support personnel (including graphic designers, trial technicians, and related staff).”

Subramanian said the states should have known for a while that the Justice Department might settle their part of the case, and should have been prepared to serve as lead counsel. “Now you are telling the court, ‘We don’t like where we are and we prefer a repeat.’” States took steps to litigate on their own as early as Jan. 29 when they were first notified about the initial settlement proposal, but it remains unclear whether they can retain a Justice Department expert as a witness, among other issues, said Elinor Hoffman, a lawyer for New York’s attorney general. There are “good reasons to save taxpayer money, which is that we don’t have 40 teams of 40 attorneys” ready to take on a case, as might happen in private litigation, Gitlin said.

If the concessions reported in the Justice Department agreement are finalized and approved by the court, they could help weaken Live Nation’s grip on the live events industry, which trial witnesses say prompted venues to stick with Ticketmaster and Live Nation for fear of retaliation. But the states considering the lawsuit and some outside stakeholders say it will never be enough.

Ahead of the public release of the settlement on Monday, New York AG Letitia James Issue a statement With more than two dozen other state attorneys general condemning the DOJ settlement, saying: “My fellow Attorneys General and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition in the live entertainment industry. We will continue to fight this case without the federal government.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a… statement Monday, “Only in the first week of the trial did we actually hear that Live Nation intended to take advantage of fans — and were able to do so because fans had nowhere else to go. Live Nation manipulated the market, set itself apart from any competitor, and raised money — not because it was better, but because it acted illegally and created a monopoly.”

The settlement comes shortly after the former antitrust chief Jill Slater left the role Immediately before the start of the trial. The departure and shuffles of previous employees Questions asked On agency motives and influence.

It’s not just government prosecutors who are unhappy with the Justice Department’s settlement, either. “One of the main reasons the live events market remains so dysfunctional is that musicians are too often left out of political discussions that affect them, their fans and their communities,” said Kevin Erickson, director of the Future of Music Coalition, which advocates on behalf of artists. “In light of this, a weak settlement before any artists or managers are allowed to take the witness stand would be a harmful and cruel outcome. We encourage the state attorneys general to do the right thing and continue to fight for separation.”