Live Nation Antitrust Case Narrows as Plaintiffs Drop Standalone Exclusive-Dealing Claim

The federal antitrust case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster narrowed again Tuesday, as the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss one of the claims that had survived Judge Arun Subramanian’s pretrial winnowing of the case, trimming the issues further as the trial moves toward its endgame.

In a stipulation filed April 7, the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief, identified as “Unlawful Exclusive Dealing in Violation of Sherman Act § 1.” Because the dismissal is with prejudice, that standalone claim is now out of the case for good. (1391 – embedded below)

The move comes in a case that had already been significantly narrowed before trial. In his Feb. 18 summary-judgment ruling (1037 – embedded below), Subramanian held that only three sets of claims would proceed: the government’s claims related to the large-amphitheater market, its claims related to the venue-facing primary ticketing market, and whatever state-law claims were not dismissed along with the federal ones. At the close of the opinion, the court summarized the surviving case the same way, stating that trial would proceed on “(1) the government’s claims concerning the artist-facing amphitheater market; (2) its claims concerning the venue-facing primary ticketing market …; and (3) the state claims that aren’t subject to dismissal based on the resolution of the federal claims.”

That means Tuesday’s filing did not knock out one of the five original federal theories as they were first pleaded in the complaint. Instead, it removed one of the surviving federal claims that remained after summary judgment.

The dropped count was still a significant one. In the amended complaint, the claim directly challenged Ticketmaster’s long-term exclusive primary ticketing agreements with major concert venues, alleging that those contracts unreasonably restrained competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleged that the agreements were terminable only for cause, lasted from three to 14 years, and foreclosed a substantial share of the market for primary ticketing services to major concert venues.

That claim had survived summary judgment. In the February ruling, Subramanian held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Live Nation had used exclusive contracts in the venue-facing primary ticketing market to foreclose competition, and later rejected the company’s argument that the Section 1 exclusive-dealing theory had to be analyzed contract by contract rather than cumulatively.

The timing strongly suggests the new stipulation is tied to the trial’s endgame fight over what will actually go to the jury. On March 31, Live Nation filed a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law on all remaining claims and specifically targeted the First and Second Claims for Relief, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the relevant “major concert venues” ticketing markets and that, without those markets, both the primary-ticketing monopolization claim and the exclusive-dealing claim failed.

Live Nation’s filing argued more broadly that plaintiffs had failed to prove monopoly power, anticompetitive effects, threats, retaliation, conditioning, or unlawful exclusive dealing. On the contracts issue, the company argued that venues preferred exclusive arrangements, that those arrangements had efficiency benefits, and that plaintiffs had not shown Ticketmaster used them to charge supracompetitive prices.

The states pushed back in a response filed April 6, defending the exclusive-contract theory at length. They argued that the jury could still find Ticketmaster’s long-term exclusive agreements were exclusionary conduct used to maintain its alleged monopoly, emphasizing that those contracts averaged five years or more, were widespread nationwide, and were reinforced through aggressive early renewals designed to avoid competitive bidding.

That evidence included internal language about “aggressively pursu[ing] early renewal opportunities to avoid RFP processes,” a renewal document stating that one proposal was designed to “lock in the business and limit the client counter proposals or RFP,” and internal compensation materials that rewarded longer terms and early renewals. Taken together, those materials gave the states a concrete basis to argue that exclusivity was being maintained not just by contract language, but by renewal tactics aimed at preventing open competition for key venue accounts.

That makes the sequence especially notable. Live Nation moved to knock out the standalone exclusive-dealing claim under Rule 50. The states defended it. Then, one day later, the parties jointly agreed to dismiss that exact count with prejudice. The stipulation itself does not say why the claim was dropped, and it does not indicate that Subramanian ruled on that specific issue before the filing. But in practical terms, it fits the same late-stage narrowing process that often occurs as a complex antitrust trial approaches jury charge and deliberations.

Importantly, the dismissal does not erase Ticketmaster’s exclusive contracts from the remaining case narrative. Subramanian’s summary-judgment ruling allowed the venue-facing primary ticketing claims to proceed, including the government’s broader theory that Ticketmaster used exclusive contracts and related conduct to maintain monopoly power in that market. What Tuesday’s stipulation removes is the separate Section 1 count treating those contracts as a standalone unlawful-exclusive-dealing claim.

That distinction is central to understanding what this filing does and does not mean. It is a meaningful concession by the plaintiffs, and a tangible win for Live Nation, because one independent federal theory has been removed from the verdict mix. But it is not a collapse of the case. The broader venue-facing ticketing claims survived summary judgment and remain the core federal ticketing fight, while the large-amphitheater claims also remain in play.

In that sense, Tuesday’s filing is best understood as an endgame trim. Judge Subramanian had already narrowed the federal case before trial. Now, with jury-stage motions underway, the parties have narrowed it further by taking the standalone Section 1 exclusive-dealing claim off the table while leaving the larger monopolization fight intact.

EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS

1391 – Stipulation

1037 – Summary Judgement Ruling (February)

Previous USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial Coverage from TicketNews

– 4/7: Sanctions Fight Opens New Front in Live Nation-AEG War Over Concert Ticketing – 4/7: Trial nears endgame as states fight 50(a) motion, defend expert testimony – 4/3: Sanctions Sought After Unsealed AEG Email Raises New Questions in Antitrust Trial – 4/2: Live Nation Seeks Pre‑Verdict 50(a) Win as Judge Orders More Trial Records Unsealed – 3/31: Defense Continues Blame Shift, Seeks to Eliminate Prosecution Expert Testimony – 3/30: Live Nation Leans on ‘Better Product’ Defense as States Press Vertical‑Integration Case – Earlier: States Say Ticketmaster’s Verified Fan more Sales Pitch than Solution; OVG Testifies to Undisclosed “Advocate” Payments – DOJ Defends its Settlement of Live Nation Case as “Blueprint” – Judge Demands DOJ/LN Settlement Details be Made Public, Promptly – Trump Personally Pressed for Settlement, Met With Rapino March 5 – After Rapino Fireworks, States Re-center Live Nation Trial on its Use of Leverage – States Put Live Nation’s Rapino at Center of Ticketmaster Strategy – Tech, Venue Leverage, and What Jurors May Not Hear Ahead of Rapino Testimony – Live Nation Trial Presses Fees, Conditioning, and Consent-Decree Questions – Trial Resumes; States Press Amphitheater Case, Judge Presses Tunney Compliance – Most States to Press On with Antitrust Trial, Resuming Monday in New York – Internal Chats Illustrate Holdback, Platinum Pricing Squeeze – Unsealed Exhibits Show Ticketing Executives Mocking Fans, Boasting of Upsell Charges – Judge presses states to negotiate after DOJ’s shock settlement— holdout AGs push for mistrial – Judge Says DOJ, Live Nation Showed “Absolute Disrespect” for Court in Settlement Chaos – DOJ-Live Nation Term Sheet Details Settlement Framework – Live Nation, DOJ Reach Settlement Avoiding Ticketmaster Breakup – Consumers, Policy Groups, and Lawmakers Slam Proposed Settlement – States Plan to Continue Pursuing Live Nation Antitrust Case Without DOJ – Live Nation Says DOJ Settlement Will “Improve the Concert Experience,” Denies Antitrust Allegations – ’I Will Not Be Gaslit’: Consumers React to DOJ-Live Nation Settlement