Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A visual metaphor for the high-stakes antitrust battle over Live Nation’s dominance of the live entertainment industry.Manhattan Today
The high-profile antitrust case against Live Nation, the concert industry giant that owns Ticketmaster, reached closing arguments in federal court in Manhattan. The 34 states bringing the lawsuit accused Live Nation of operating a monopoly that has suffocated competition and driven up prices for fans, while Live Nation disputed the charges and said the statements cited by prosecutors were taken out of context.
Why it matters
The outcome of this case could have major implications for the live entertainment industry, where Live Nation is a dominant player. The case is also seen as a test of the federal government’s approach to antitrust enforcement under the Trump administration.
The details
During closing arguments, the states’ lawyer Jeffrey L. Kessler cited internal Live Nation documents that used phrases like ‘robbing them blind’ and ‘boil the frog’ to describe the company’s business practices. Live Nation’s lawyer David R. Marriott argued that these statements were taken out of context and did not reflect the overall evidence in the case, which he said favored Live Nation. The trial has been closely watched in the music industry and policy circles as a high-profile antitrust case.
The Justice Department first brought the antitrust case against Live Nation almost two years ago.The six-week trial in federal court in Manhattan reached closing arguments on April 9, 2026.
The players
Live Nation
The concert industry giant that owns Ticketmaster and is accused of operating a monopoly that has stifled competition and driven up ticket prices.
Jeffrey L. Kessler
The lawyer representing the 34 states that have brought the antitrust case against Live Nation.
David R. Marriott
The lawyer representing Live Nation in the antitrust case.
Judge Arun Subramanian
The federal judge presiding over the Live Nation antitrust trial.
Trump administration
The federal government under former President Trump, whose approach to antitrust enforcement is being tested by this high-profile case.
Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›
What they’re saying
“Who talks like this? What type of company uses this language? The answer, I think you will find, is a monopolist who views itself to be above the law.”
— Jeffrey L. Kessler, Lawyer for the 34 states
“This has been a trial by snippet and by insinuation. Live Nation did not condone those statements in any way, shape or form — they were wrong.”
— David R. Marriott, Lawyer for Live Nation
What’s next
The judge in the case is expected to rule on the antitrust lawsuit in the coming weeks or months, with the decision likely to be appealed regardless of the outcome.
The takeaway
This high-profile antitrust case against Live Nation is seen as a test of the federal government’s approach to enforcing competition laws in the live entertainment industry, where the concert giant has become a dominant player. The outcome could have significant implications for ticket prices and consumer choice in the live music market.