Live Nation Entertainment is the world’s largest live-entertainment company and owner of Ticketmaster. In recent years, there has been much scrutiny around whether Live Nation Ticketmaster constitutes an illegal monopoly in the live events and ticketing industries. Critics argue that the company’s dominance gives it unfair competitive advantages that hurt consumers and competitors. However, Live Nation claims it faces significant competition and that its size allows it to innovate and provide better experiences for fans. This article examines the key issues and evidence around Live Nation Ticketmaster’s alleged monopoly status.
Live Nation Ticketmaster’s Market Position
Live Nation Entertainment was formed in 2010 after the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The combined company has an extensive presence across the live events and ticketing ecosystem:
- Live Nation promotes over 40,000 events per year across 4,500 venues worldwide.
- Ticketmaster sells 500 million tickets per year across 30,000 venues globally.
- The company managed over 500 artists in 2019.
- Live Nation owns major venues like House of Blues and the Hollywood Palladium.
- The company has a large online presence with websites and apps like Ticketmaster.com, TM+, Universe, and more.
This expansive footprint makes Live Nation Ticketmaster the undisputed market leader in live entertainment and ticketing. According to some estimates, the combined company accounts for:
- 70% of the primary ticketing market in the US
- 80-90% of major concert venue box office sales
- 60% of the top 100 concert venues
- 80% of the top 10 concert promoters
Such high market shares across core live entertainment assets give Live Nation Ticketmaster substantial leverage and influence over the industry. The company is essentially unavoidable for artists, venues, concert promoters, and fans wanting participation in major live music events.
Anti-Competitive Concerns
Critics argue that Live Nation Ticketmaster’s dominance allows it to exploit its gatekeeper position in ways that stifle competition and harm consumers. Some of the main anti-competitive concerns include:
Bundling
As a vertically integrated company, Live Nation Ticketmaster can bundle its services in ways that pressure venues, promoters, and artists to work exclusively with them. For example, the company can offer venues access to top performing artists only if they agree to use Ticketmaster as their ticketing service. This makes it hard for competitors to break into ticketing without having exclusive talent access like Live Nation.
Exclusive Dealing Arrangements
Live Nation Ticketmaster uses coercive, long-term contracts that box out rivals. In some cases, venues must agree to use Ticketmaster exclusively for 10+ years to get Live Nation events. These exclusive dealings make it extremely hard for new ticketing firms to gain a foothold.
Predatory Pricing
There is evidence that Live Nation Ticketmaster has used below-cost ticket fees and services for some clients to undercut competitors until they are driven out of business. The huge size of the company allows it to take losses that smaller ticketing firms cannot absorb. Once rivals are weakened, Live Nation Ticketmaster can raise prices freely without competition.
Conflicts of Interest
As both a promoter and ticketing service, Live Nation Ticketmaster faces inherent conflicts of interest that hurt consumers. For example, the company can steer the best tickets towards its own resale services over competitors. Or it can disadvantage independent promoters using its ticketing platform. This distorts competition and limits choice for fans.
Barrier to Entry for Competitors
The high fixed costs of technology infrastructure, security, relationships with venues/promoters, and more create formidable barriers to entry in ticketing and promotions. Live Nation Ticketmaster can leverage its huge size advantages to block rivals and discourage new entry through below-cost pricing, exclusives, and other practices. Smaller firms struggle to gain scale.
Lack of Transparency
Critics argue the Live Nation Ticketmaster merger has made the live entertainment market opaque and unwieldy for competitors. There is limited visibility into event costs, artist payrates, ticket distribution, rebates, and incentives across the company’s vast assets and relationships. This information asymmetry benefits the incumbent and keeps new entrants in the dark.
Live Nation Ticketmaster’s Defenses
While critics portray it as an illegal monopoly, Live Nation Ticketmaster disputes these charges and argues it faces robust competition. Some of its counterarguments include:
Competitors Exist in Core Markets
The company points out there are still large competitors in ticketing (AXS) and promotions (AEG, Bowery Presents). While smaller, these firms prove Live Nation Ticketmaster does not have free reign over pricing with unchecked market power.
Shareholder Pressure to Perform
As a public company, Live Nation must answer to shareholders seeking profits. This prevents abusive pricing since excess margins would incentivize new entry and provide opportunities for existing rivals. The stock market limits the company’s actions.
Business Realities Necessitate Scale
Live Nation Ticketmaster argues its size and breadth are business necessities to profitably serve fans and venues. Only a scaled company can afford to build the technology, secure top artists, and market events required for quality live experiences. Smaller players simply are not viable.
Benefits to Consumers
The company claims that consumers see meaningful benefits from its end-to-end platform. Fans get easier access to tickets, integrated experiences, and rewards programs like Ticketmaster Verified. Venues and promoters benefit from proven ticketing tools and global event expertise.
COVID-19 Pandemic Harmed Business
Live Nation Ticketmaster states the pandemic devastated its business with mass event cancellations. This shows it does not have freedom to abuse market power, otherwise financial performance would have been resilient.
Government Scrutiny of Live Nation Ticketmaster
Given long-running monopoly concerns, Live Nation Ticketmaster has faced significant scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers. Some government actions taken include:
DOJ Review of Ticketmaster-Live Nation Merger
The U.S. Department of Justice assessed the competitive impacts of the proposed Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger in 2009. It ultimately approved the deal but with a 10-year consent decree imposing conditions on the combined company.
DOJ Consent Decree Terms
Under the consent decree, Live Nation Ticketmaster agreed not to retaliate against venues using competitors, threaten concert access, or bundle ticketing-promotion services beyond allowances. They faced limits on acquisitions during the decree term also.
Calls for DOJ to Revisit Consent Decree
Citing ongoing monopoly concerns, DOJ was urged to take fresh look at Live Nation Ticketmaster in 2021 as the decree expired. DOJ made no major revisions but is reportedly still monitoring the company.
State Attorney General Probes
In 2021, nine state attorneys general launched investigations into Live Nation Ticktmaster centered on abuse of market power. Outcomes are still pending.
US Congressional Hearings
Congress held hearings in 2009 and 2021 examining competition issues in ticketing markets. Live Nation Ticketmaster defended its practices as both events but greater oversight was urged.
UK Competition Probes
UK authorities have probed Live Nation Ticketmaster multiple times, including a 2007 inquiry blocking the acquisition of a ticketing firm. In 2021, a new investigation was opened into suspected antitrust violations.
Public and Fan Opposition
In addition to formal legal channels, Live Nation Ticketmaster has faced public backlash over its perceived monopoly power. Main criticisms from media, watchdog groups, and fans include:
- Soaring ticket prices and fees that far outpace inflation.
- “Dynamic pricing” algorithms that charge excessively high last-minute rates.
- Aggressive litigation against competitors and ticket brokers.
- Controversies over deceptive fees, dodged taxes, biased resale markets.
- Poor customer service and lack of options.
While not definitive proof of an antitrust violation in itself, ongoing negative public perception indicates an underlying lack of satisfaction with Live Nation Ticketmaster’s dominance. Calls remain for reforms and more consumer choice.
Key Antitrust Cases Against Live Nation Ticketmaster
Alongside government action, private parties have also brought antitrust lawsuits attempting to rein in Live Nation Ticketmaster’s practices:
Class Action Suit Over Service Fees
In 2018, Live Nation settled a class action lawsuit for $45 million over deceptive bundling of fees that inflated ticket prices. Fans argued the true costs were hidden until late in the buying process.
Venue Suit Over Alleged Threats
The Anthem music venue in Washington, D.C. sued Live Nation in 2018 for allegedly threatening to restrict artist bookings unless the venue used Ticketmaster. Case was dismissed.
Competitor Suits Over Exclusive Deals
Ticketing firm AEG and promoter Bob Sillerman have filed separate antitrust cases against Live Nation Ticketmaster over its use of long-term exclusive agreements to block rivals from venues and ticket sales. Ongoing cases.
Retaliation Allegations
Some industry players claim Live Nation Ticketmaster retaliates against artists and venues who work with competing ticketing services. This purportedly involves restricting tour access and prime concert dates. Hard to legally prove without internal documents.
Key Antitrust Violations
For Live Nation Ticketmaster to be found a monopoly in violation of antitrust laws, authorities must generally prove:
Market Power
Live Nation Ticketmaster’s large share of key markets shows substantial market power. But shares alone are not illegal.
Anti-Competitive Conduct
Company would need to be found abusing position through exclusivity, coercion, below-cost pricing, discrimination, or other means intended to harm competition.
Consumer Harm
Actions must demonstrably hurt consumers through higher prices, loss of choice, lower quality, stifled innovation, or other tangible damages that outweigh efficiencies.
Potential Remedies and Outcomes
If authorities establish antitrust violations, potential remedies aimed at restoring competition include:
- Breaking up the company into separate promotions, ticketing, and other units.
- Prohibiting exclusive long-term venue and artist contracts.
- Opening ticketing platforms and consumer data to rivals.
- Restricting the company’s ability to bundle services and products.
- Creating an internal firewall separating Live Nation and Ticketmaster operations.
More extreme outcomes could include reversing the Ticketmaster merger or imposing utility-like regulations on Live Nation Ticketmaster. However, total breakup is unlikely given the logistical complexities. More probable are targeted constraints on business practices judged most damaging while keeping the core business intact.
Conclusion
Live Nation Ticketmaster is clearly the dominant force in live entertainment ticketing and promotions. However, its vast scale alone does not make it an illegal monopoly under antitrust laws. Critics must still prove the company abuses its position to stifle competition, misuse market power, and tangibly harm consumers. While Live Nation Ticketmaster says it competes fairly, ongoing probes, lawsuits, and public dissatisfaction show genuine monopoly concerns remain active around its practices. Time will tell whether authorities eventually intervene more forcefully to restrain Live Nation Ticketmaster’s influence over the future of live events.