United States of America et al v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al

Track this case

Case Number:

1:24-cv-03973

Court:

New York Southern

Nature of Suit:

Anti-Trust

Judge:

Arun Subramanian

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. April 21, 2026

    Live Nation Fails In Bid For Quick Nix Of Antitrust Damages

    A New York federal court has refused to rule immediately on Live Nation's bid to strike expert testimony and set aside the damages awarded to state enforcers in the antitrust case accusing the company of monopolizing the live entertainment industry.

  2. April 20, 2026

    Live Nation Wants Expert, Damages Cut After Antitrust Verdict

    Live Nation is asking a New York federal court to strike the testimony of a key expert witness for the states and to wipe the damages awarded by the jury based on her work, in the antitrust case accusing the company of monopolizing the live entertainment industry.

  3. April 16, 2026

    AGs' Win Over Live Nation Leaves DOJ Watching From The Side

    Live Nation Entertainment Inc.'s across-the-board trial rout by 34 state attorneys general underscores the ascendancy of state antitrust enforcers looking to fill perceived enforcement gaps left by the U.S. Department of Justice during President Donald Trump's second term.

  4. April 16, 2026

    Dems Call On Watchdog To Probe DOJ Antitrust Work

    A group of Democratic federal lawmakers this week called on the U.S. Department of Justice's acting inspector general to investigate the possibility that lobbying has led to misconduct in the department's antitrust work, including the DOJ's recent surprise settlement with event ticketing giant Live Nation.

  5. April 15, 2026

    Jury Finds Live Nation Monopolized Concert Ticketing

    Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary harmed competition in the live entertainment sector by willfully monopolizing ticketing services to major concert venues and unlawfully tying artists' use of large amphitheaters to Live Nation's promotional services, a Manhattan federal jury found on Wednesday.

  6. April 09, 2026

    States Tell Jury That Live Nation Isn't Above The Law

    Counsel for 33 states and the District of Columbia on Thursday urged a Manhattan federal jury to show the world that even "a $36 billion behemoth" like Live Nation isn't above antitrust laws and find it liable for flagrantly monopolizing the U.S. live entertainment market, to the detriment of artists, venue operators and fans.

  7. April 08, 2026

    AEG, BigLaw Atty In Hot Seat As Live Nation Trial Nears End

    Live Nation on Wednesday concluded its defense case with glowing testimony about it from the manager for rap star Drake, while the Manhattan federal judge overseeing the case said rival company AEG Worldwide and a Hogan Lovells lawyer may face sanctions for revealing confidential information about a witness.

  8. April 06, 2026

    States, AEG Say Live Nation Sanctions Bid Is Nonsense

    A coalition of state-level enforcers and AEG Worldwide on Monday separately pushed back against accusations of witness tampering from Live Nation Entertainment Inc. amid a trial accusing the live entertainment giant and its Ticketmaster subsidiary of anticompetitive conduct, saying the defense allegations of undue influence are false.

  9. March 27, 2026

    Live Nation Beat Rivals With Better Tech, Jury Hears

    A former executive for AEG Presents on Friday testified that his former employer's ticketing system was subpar to that of Live Nation's Ticketmaster, as counsel for the latter portrayed the live entertainment giant's dominant position in the market as a natural result of its superior services to clients.

  10. March 26, 2026

    Live Nation Kicks Off Defense Case In Antitrust Trial

    A coalition of state attorneys general on Thursday mostly concluded their antitrust case against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary, following weeks of a trial that was nearly derailed after the U.S. Department of Justice dropped out, and Live Nation kicked off its defense case with a company executive who pushed back against claims of anticompetitive conduct.