Live Nation Files Appeal Motion in DOJ Case Days After Pulling Settlement Blog Post

Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster are asking a federal judge to halt next month’s Department of Justice antitrust trial while two legal questions are reviewed by an appeals court — a move that could significantly reshape or potentially end the case before a jury is seated.

In a motion filed Sunday (Feb. 22) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the companies requested permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal of portions of Judge Arun Subramanian’s February 18 summary judgment ruling. Jury selection is currently scheduled to begin March 2.

An interlocutory appeal allows parties to challenge specific legal determinations before a case proceeds to final judgment — an uncommon procedural route reserved for issues considered sufficiently consequential to warrant immediate appellate review.

What Live Nation Is Challenging

Live Nation is not appealing the portions of the ruling it won. Judge Subramanian previously dismissed the DOJ’s proposed national market for concert promotion services tied to major venues and rejected certain monopolization theories.

However, the court allowed several core claims to proceed to trial, including:

• Allegations that Ticketmaster maintains monopoly power in the venue-facing primary ticketing market
• Claims of exclusive dealing and foreclosure of rival ticketing competitors
• A tying claim alleging Live Nation leveraged control of its amphitheaters to coerce artists into using its promotion services
• Parallel claims brought by 39 state attorneys general, later joined by additional states

Live Nation’s new filing challenges two specific legal conclusions that allowed those remaining claims to survive.

1. Market Definition and Price Discrimination

The government’s case centers in part on a subset of customers it calls “major concert venues.” Live Nation argues that to sustain a monopoly claim built around a defined customer group, the government must show those customers were subjected to differential pricing.

The company contends the DOJ has presented “zero evidence of actual price discrimination” in those alleged markets and points to last year’s FTC case against Meta Platforms, where a court adopted a narrower view of such market definitions.

Judge Subramanian disagreed in his ruling. Live Nation now asks the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve what it characterizes as a legal conflict.

According to the filing, if the appeals court rules in its favor on this point, the government’s monopoly claims in ticketing markets, its exclusive dealing claim, and the state attorneys general’s damages claims would fall away.

2. The Tying Claim

The second issue concerns the DOJ’s allegation that Live Nation unlawfully tied access to its amphitheaters to the use of its promotion services.

Live Nation notes that Judge Subramanian found the government’s proposed market for “promotion services at major concert venues” was not a valid standalone antitrust market. Yet the court allowed the tying claim to proceed.

The company argues that a tying claim cannot survive without a legally cognizable market for the tied product and says the ruling deviates from binding Second Circuit precedent.

“If either or both legal questions were decided the other way,” Live Nation wrote, “the nature and scope of the upcoming trial would fundamentally change.”

If all federal claims were eliminated, the company argues the court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims — potentially ending the case in its entirety.

Live Nation further contends that empaneling a jury for what is expected to be a complex, month-long trial would waste judicial and party resources if the claims are later deemed legally deficient on appeal.

| READ: Live Nation Pushes DOJ for Antitrust Case Settlement as Core Monopoly Claims Head to Trial |

From Settlement Push to Procedural Challenge

The motion follows a now-removed public statement from Live Nation EVP of Corporate & Regulatory Affairs Dan Wall, who last week called on the DOJ to settle the case.

In a blog post titled “It’s Time to Move On,” Wall argued that the summary judgment ruling effectively eliminated any realistic prospect of a court-ordered breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. He maintained that the dismissal of the government’s concert promotion monopoly theory “ends the narrative” that ticketing and promotion operate as mutually reinforcing monopolies.

Wall wrote that the case was now limited to three issues: long-term exclusive ticketing contracts, a discrete ticketing deal with Oak View Group, and Live Nation’s policy regarding amphitheater access for rival promoters. None, he argued, would justify more than standard injunctive relief.

The post was removed from Live Nation’s website without explanation, though archived versions show it remained online through February 20.

Sunday’s court filing takes a different approach, focusing squarely on appellate review rather than settlement. Still, both efforts reflect a clear objective: avoiding a March trial.

The Broader Context

The DOJ, joined by attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia — with additional states later joining — sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May 2024, alleging monopolistic conduct across promotion, venue control, and ticketing markets.

Judge Subramanian’s summary judgment order narrowed the government’s case but preserved what many view as its most consequential vertical integration claims — particularly those concerning amphitheater control, exclusive contracts, and foreclosure of ticketing rivals.

In one notable passage, the court wrote that “a reasonable jury could certainly find that artists were coerced into going with Live Nation as their promoter to get into its amphitheaters.”

No findings of liability have been made. The court has not ruled on remedies.

Live Nation reported record annual revenues of $25.2 billion for 2025 the same week Wall’s settlement call was published — and disclosed that it paid no U.S. federal income taxes in 2025, attributing the outcome to provisions included in the recently enacted federal tax legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Unless the court grants the requested appeal and pauses proceedings, jury selection remains set for March 2 — with the core allegations about Live Nation’s integration of promotion, venue ownership, and ticketing poised to be tested before a jury.