Live Nation Responds to Monopoly Verdict With Defiance, Vows to Fight Jury Findings

Hours after a Manhattan jury found that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally maintained monopoly power, the company issued a defiant response, signaling it has no intention of changing its practices unless all other legal options are exhausted.

“The jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” the company said in a statement posted Wednesday evening on its corporate website. The statement pointed to a series of pending motions that Live Nation says could still eliminate or significantly narrow the verdict’s impact. The company said it intends to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability, continue pressing its motion to strike the damages testimony that supported the jury’s award, and appeal any unfavorable rulings that follow.

Previous Coverage: Live Nation Pushes to Kill Antitrust Case Before Jury as Closings Arguments Begin in New York | Trial nears endgame as states fight 50(a) motion, defend expert testimony

In other words, even after a jury concluded that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally maintained monopoly power, the company’s immediate posture was not one of contrition, reflection, or acknowledgment of the verdict’s significance. It was defiance. Live Nation’s statement emphasized that the legal fight is far from over, argued that the damages finding applies only to a relatively limited universe of tickets and venues, and insisted that the ultimate outcome of the states’ case is unlikely to differ materially from the Justice Department settlement that many critics have already characterized as weak.

That stance is likely to draw renewed scrutiny because the states that pressed forward to trial did so precisely because they rejected the DOJ’s mid‑trial settlement as too lenient. While the federal government agreed to a package of behavioral remedies and allowed Live Nation to retain Ticketmaster, the holdout states continued pursuing broader monopolization claims—and prevailed at trial. By signaling that it still expects to emerge with consequences similar to that earlier settlement, Live Nation appeared to be telling the market, its critics, and the court that even a monopoly verdict does not necessarily pose a fundamental threat to how it operates.

The company’s public posture was echoed in an internal message that appears to have been sent by CEO Michael Rapino to staff Wednesday night. In screenshots reviewed by TicketNews, Rapino described the verdict as “disappointing,” but framed it as only “one step in a much longer legal process,” emphasizing that “there are significant legal steps ahead, including pending rulings and motions, which means this is far from over.”

Rapino also appeared to reassure employees that it remained “business as usual” across the company’s broader operations. He said Live Nation was “standing behind” its U.S. amphitheater and Ticketmaster teams and warned that “the noise will be loud” in the days ahead. Much of the public commentary, he wrote, would not reflect “how our business actually works,” adding that Live Nation has “always been a company that focuses on the work” and that “no court ruling changes that.”

Taken together, the public statement and the apparent internal message suggest a company moving immediately into post‑verdict combat mode. That response is not surprising as a legal matter. Judge Arun Subramanian still must rule on pending motions, oversee the next phase on damages and remedies, and ultimately determine what injunctive relief, if any, should be imposed after the states submit their proposals. Live Nation will also have the opportunity to appeal and has made clear it intends to do so if it cannot undo the verdict through post‑trial motions.

Even so, the tone remains striking. At a moment when state attorneys general and Live Nation critics were celebrating a rare jury finding that one of the most powerful companies in live entertainment had illegally maintained monopoly power, the company’s response amounted to a suggestion that the verdict may yet be reduced, contained, or effectively outlasted. Legally, that may be accurate. Publicly, it lands as a familiar corporate sneer: the insistence that even when a jury says otherwise, the real rules still have not caught up.

---

What Pending Motions Could Do in Live Nation’s Favor

First, Live Nation is referring to its renewed Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law—an argument that the states’ case should never have gone to the jury in its present form. As TicketNews previously reported, the company argued before closing arguments that plaintiffs failed to prove the remaining primary‑ticketing monopolization claim, the amphitheater tying claim, the amphitheater monopolization claim, antitrust standing, state‑law claims, and damages. In practical terms, it was a last‑minute attempt to pull the rug out from under the case before jurors were asked to decide it.

Live Nation contended that the states defined the relevant ticketing market too narrowly, artificially inflating Ticketmaster’s market share, and failed to present legally sufficient evidence of monopoly power, anticompetitive effects, or exclusionary conduct. Judge Subramanian declined to grant the motion before deliberations, instead reserving decision and allowing the case to go to the jury.

The second major motion concerns damages. Live Nation has continued pressing to strike the testimony of economist Dr. Rosa Abrantes‑Metz, whose analysis underpinned the jury’s finding that Ticketmaster overcharged consumers by $1.72 per ticket. The company’s attack has focused on what it claims is a fundamental flaw in her model: the exclusion of upfront payments from her “retained amount” analysis and her reliance on AXS as a comparable competitor, which the defense argues does not hold across the full time period studied.

The states countered that the dispute amounts to a battle between expert witnesses rather than grounds for excluding the testimony altogether. They argued that upfront payments are fixed costs rather than part of a marginal pricing analysis, and that a separate fan‑fee regression supported the overcharge conclusion. Judge Subramanian also reserved decision on that motion, meaning Live Nation is now attempting to use the post‑verdict phase to challenge not only liability but the damages foundation of the jury’s award.

That context helps explain why Live Nation’s statement emphasized “pending rulings and motions.” The company is not merely promising an appeal in the abstract; it is signaling that it believes multiple off‑ramps remain between the jury verdict and a final judgment. Beyond those motions, the case now heads into a remedies phase, in which Judge Subramanian will determine what injunctive relief, if any, should be imposed, even as the separate Tunney Act process tied to the DOJ settlement proceeds on its own track.

Live Nation’s position—before the verdict and after it—has been consistent: that the court should ultimately compress the litigation’s outcome into something much closer to the federal settlement than the broader restructuring sought by the holdout states.ive Nation’s statement was so pointed about “pending rulings and motions.” The company is not just promising an appeal in the abstract; it is signaling that it still sees multiple off-ramps between the jury’s verdict and any final judgment. Even beyond those motions, the next stretch of the case will include a remedies fight before Subramanian over what injunctive relief should be imposed, while the separate Tunney Act process tied to the DOJ settlement continues on its own track. Live Nation’s position, both before verdict and after it, has been that the court should still compress the case down to something much closer to the federal settlement than the broader restructuring the holdout states have sought.

Recent USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial Coverage from TicketNews

– 4/15: Dem. Senators Urge Strong Tunney Act Review of DOJ/Live Nation Settlement – 4/14: Verdict Watch Continues as Jury Deliberates in Live Nation Trial – 4/10: States Say LN Built ‘Moat Around the Castle’ in Closing Arguments – 4/9: Live Nation Mounts One Final Push to Kill Antitrust Case Before Jury Takes Over – 4/8: Antitrust Case Narrows as Plaintiffs Drop Standalone Exclusive-Dealing Claim – 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 – Earlier: Sanctions Sought After Unsealed AEG Email Raises New Questions in Antitrust Trial – Live Nation Seeks Pre‑Verdict 50(a) Win as Judge Orders More Trial Records Unsealed – Defense Continues Blame Shift, Seeks to Eliminate Prosecution Expert Testimony – Live Nation Leans on ‘Better Product’ Defense as States Press Vertical‑Integration Case – States Say Verified Fan Just a Sales Pitch; 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