The Live Nation settlement has puzzled industry insiders

Instead of proceeding with a jury trial against Live Nation-Ticketmaster as expected, the Department of Justice Settlement announced The Monday that overlooked what was at the top of his wish list: separation.

What the Department of Justice obtained was a A series of concessions Which some industry stakeholders found unsatisfactory and even confusing. There are a few bright spots, those who spoke to her Edge A 15 percent cap on Ticketmaster service fees at venues owned or operated by Live Nation, for example, and a pledge to give artists more transparency about their ticket sales, he said. But they remained unconvinced that the deal would lead to the widespread change that the lawsuit’s supporters wanted. Many hope State prosecutors are continuing their case They sought broader remedies, even if there was no guarantee that a jury would find in their favor or that Judge Arun Subramanian would grant more dramatic requests.

“The main theme in my discussions today with partner organizations and members was: Who asked for this?” said Stephen Parker, Executive Director of the National Independent Venues Association (NIVA). “Most of us are confused. First, why now? Second, why this? And third, where did this come from?” Parker said many provisions in the settlement either suggest solutions that his members likely wouldn’t be interested in taking advantage of — such as using multiple ticket systems for an event — or are so parsimonious that they don’t make sense.

Kevin Erickson, director of the artist advocacy group Future of Music Coalition, echoed this, pointing to a provision regarding Ticketmaster’s pledge to open up the backend to competitors. At trial, witnesses (including the CEO of rival SeatGeek) described Ticketmaster as “something from the 1980s” or like “an icon flying across the screen” in MatrixThe Department of Justice noted the problems Ticketmaster had selling tickets for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour (the company Blame cyber attack). “I don’t understand who’s asking this. They’re just arguing that Ticketmaster’s tech stack is held together with duct tape, so why is giving people access to Ticketmaster’s tech stack a cure?”

Both Parker and Erickson said the company’s agreement to give up exclusive booking agreements for 13 U.S. runways covers a relatively small portion of the venues it controls. Ministry of Justice The alleged one Live Nation “owns, manages or exclusively books at least 40 of the top 50 and 60 of the top 100 amphitheaters in the United States.” The company says it’s not actually selling any speakers as part of the settlement, but is allowing other promoters to book at those 13 venues. Some appear to be located in areas where the outdoor venue may face weather restrictions that shorten its season or create an uncomfortable viewing environment in the summer, Erickson noted. “Is this a franchise or is it moving toward business lines that will make the company’s margins look better?”

Leaving the decision up to the jury and judge is more risky than making a known deal. Even if the states hearing the case get a jury to agree that Live Nation is an illegal monopoly, the judge may not grant all the relief they want. The Google search case could be an example of this Pyrrhic victory, as the government often won its claims at the liability stage, but the judge granted remedies. Much less than what the Department of Justice requested To solve her concerns. For his part, Michael Rapinoe, CEO of Live Nation, said: He said in a statement He added that the settlement “represents a major step in improving the concert experience for artists and fans across the United States.”

But with the trial over — at least for now — the public won’t get a clear view of what the government accused Live Nation of doing in the first place. “By moving beyond the presentation of evidence to remedies, it makes it particularly difficult to judge whether the punishment matches the crime,” Erickson said. “That was part of the testimony I was looking forward to, hearing more directly from some of the people on the witness list about the barriers they faced getting to the stands and holding grandstand tours.” If the case resumes Monday, the jury will still hear from Jay Marciano, chief operating officer of AEG, a competitor to Live Nation-Ticketmaster in both concert promotion and ticketing, Subramanian said. There are also more venues, Live Nation executives and artists including Kid Rock on the plaintiffs’ witness list who have yet to testify.

The settlement includes an anti-retaliation clause, but that was already a thing Central to the consent decree An agreement between Live Nation and the Department of Justice was first entered into in 2010, and the Justice Department’s lawsuit claims that did not end the practice.

Critics of the deal say that without structurally separating the company and changing its incentives, not enough will change. “Today’s settlement does little to reduce costs or keep venues independent and protect fans. It must be dismantled,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Edge. “It’ll be the same old way, the same way this settlement works.”

Klobuchar plans to introduce a new bill to strengthen court review of antitrust settlements, including by empowering states to play a greater role and ensuring that courts cannot approve agreements that fail to resolve antitrust issues. Reviews under the Tony Act are actually intended to ensure antitrust settlements are in the public interest, although Syracuse law professor Shobha Ghosh says it’s rare for a judge to reject a deal outright. Under the Tony Rule review, the court will evaluate whether the parties are likely to come back on the same issues, and whether the proposal creates new problems, he said.

What about the outcome that many music fans are hoping for: lower ticket prices? Caps on ticket fees could help, but Bill Werde, director of the music industry program at Syracuse University, said the issue is larger and more complex than this issue alone could solve. “For the typical music fan, they just want to know that they can get tickets to the shows they want to go to and they want those tickets to be affordable,” Werde said. “I don’t think this settlement, and I don’t think almost any possible outcome, even from the case that states continue to pursue, is going to move the needle on this issue.” That’s because another part of the problem with skyrocketing ticket prices has to do with massive demand for tickets outstripping supply, Werde said.

Additionally, as long as Live Nation and Ticketmaster are linked, the company could theoretically shift around lost revenue from fee caps to other areas. Werde said he could offer less to artists, or raise ticket prices at basic costs before fees. Similar dynamics may persist regarding corporate power over concert venues as well. “As long as Live Nation still owns Ticketmaster, whether the Department of Justice proves anything or not, whether Live Nation threatens people with this or not, the leverage is clear and very implicit,” Werde said. “The thing about leverage is that if you already have it, you usually don’t need to get rid of it.”