Live Nation Verdict Watch Continues as Jury Deliberates in Antitrust Trial

The massive antitrust case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster remains with the jury, as deliberations entered their third day on Tuesday in New York. The answer for those wondering how long it could take is simple: as long as it needs to. We might see a verdict land before the day is out. Or, we might see this stretch from days into weeks as nine strangers make a decision that will potentially alter the live events and ticketing landscape for years to come.

An antitrust case such as this one is enormously complicated – with jurors weighing evidence from academics and economists who disagree on market theories, conflicting testimony from pro- and anti-Ticketmaster venue executives, and a mountain of documents – much of which has been actively fought over by attorneys for the prosecuting states and the defense in terms of what the jury (and the public) can see.

For readers who may have missed the substance of last week’s closing arguments, here is a refresher:

The states used their final presentation to boil a sprawling case down to a much sharper message: Live Nation’s own words, they argued, revealed the strategy behind its dominance. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, speaking for the state plaintiffs, told jurors that “documents do not lie” and pointed back to internal records and executive testimony that plaintiffs say showed a monopolist protecting its position through pressure, leverage, and lock-in.

Earlier coverage: States Say Live Nation Built ‘Moat Around the Castle’ in Closing Arguments as Antitrust Case Goes to Jury

That closing argument leaned heavily on some of the most memorable language to emerge during the trial. Kessler argued that Michael Rapino had built a “moat around the castle” around Live Nation’s business, while reminding the jury of some of the phrases they hoped would resonate. These included Bob Roux’s “velvet hammer,” (the subtle reminders that making decisions that Live Nation/Ticketmaster don’t like has major potential consequences for venues or managers), David Marcus’ “boil the frog” (describing how Ticketmaster can layer fees on fees until the venue clients can’t take anymore), and “rob them blind, baby” (from internal slack messages between Live Nation ticketing executives Ben Baker and Jeff Weinhold joking about how comically easy it was to rip off consumers with ancillary fees).

These examples served the clear purpose to illustrate the corporate mindset the states say emerged from the company’s own internal communications. The states’ broader contention was that Live Nation’s power was not simply the product of scale or success, but of using its position across promotion, venues, and ticketing to make it harder for rivals to compete and harder for venues to walk away.

Now that those arguments are in the jury room, the notes coming back from deliberations offer the clearest public window into what the panel is actually wrestling with.

On Friday, the jury asked for expert presentations and testimony. Jurors also asked for clarification on what was meant by “relevant antitrust market” versus “relevant market in an antitrust situation,” and later sought testimony from Oak View Group CEO Chris Granger as well as the list of 257 major concert venues discussed during the case. According to courtroom reporting, the judge informed jurors that no such list of venues was itself in the trial record. The same day, the jury also sought clarification on instruction language from the judge and asked whether plaintiffs needed to prove all four elements or just one, before ending deliberations for the weekend.

That detail-oriented approach continued Monday. According to updates from the courthouse, jurors asked for testimony from Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons, former Irvine City Manager Oliver Chi, Live Nation chief Michael Rapino, and Live Nation executive Michael Evans. They also asked for clarification regarding individual state impact claims and requested the entire trial transcript.

Tuesday morning, the jury was still at it. A new note asked for joint exhibits referred to in deposition testimony, prompting the court to send back a chart corresponding to the relevant plaintiff and defense exhibits.

The docket, at least publicly, does not appear to have changed that central story. Recent entries are dominated by filings related to demonstratives, admitted exhibits, and trial email correspondence with the court, along with sealing disputes over what should be made public. Plaintiffs on April 10 filed a letter regarding public filing of admitted trial exhibits, while later entries included extensive trial email correspondence and related sealing motions. In practical terms, that looks more like record-cleanup and post-trial housekeeping than a sign of any major fresh ruling that would alter the jury’s path.

Earlier coverage: Live Nation Pushes to Kill Antitrust Case Before Jury as Closings Arguments Begin in New York

For now, the wider entertainment and ticketing world has yet to see any dramatic courtroom turn after nearly three full days of deliberations. The jury has not signaled deadlock. It has not signaled a verdict. Instead, it has signaled work — requests for testimony, exhibits, transcripts, and clarification on legal concepts that go to the heart of the states’ monopoly claims.

In a case this complicated, that likely should not be read as unusual. It should be read as a reminder that when a verdict comes, it will follow a deliberative process that may take longer than the industry’s increasingly impatient watch would prefer.

At this point, the only firm takeaway is that the case remains alive in the jury room, and the answer could come in the next hour, tomorrow, or later still.

Previous USA vs. Live Nation Entertainment Trial Coverage from TicketNews

– 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 – 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 Settlement Will “Improve the Concert Experience,” Denies Antitrust Allegations – ’I Will Not Be Gaslit’: Consumers React to DOJ-Live Nation Settlement