Live Nation Previews Dismissal Arguments in High-Stakes DOJ Antitrust Battle, Targeting ‘Threadbare and Conclusory’ Claims

Live Nation head Michael Rapino, whose company is facing a DOJ antitrust lawsuit. Photo Credit: Live Nation

As it fends off a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit from the DOJ, Live Nation has officially provided a preview of its dismissal arguments. That preview was just recently filed after coming up in an initial pretrial conference late last month. While not a full-fledged dismissal motion, the document highlights in three relatively detailed pages how the Ticketmaster parent intends to urge the court to toss the complaint.

Of course, Live Nation has from the outset pushed back against the case and the broader attempt to unwind its Ticketmaster merger. In keeping with this clear-cut opposition, the Beverly Hills-based promoter’s letter begins by refuting the core of the plaintiffs’ tying claims, which center on the idea that Live Nation illegally ties access to its amphitheaters with its concert promotion services.

And in turn, as we described in our comprehensive breakdown of the 124-page suit, the alleged antitrust violation purportedly limits artist choice.

“Live Nation has unlawfully required artists seeking to use its large amphitheaters for shows as part of a tour to also purchase promotion services from Live Nation,” the plaintiffs spelled out in the original complaint. “Artists who would otherwise choose rival promoters on the merits of those promoters must refrain from doing so to maintain use of Live Nation’s amphitheaters on their tours.”

But the way the company sees it, the argument surrounding the tying claims “muddles the roles of the various participants in the live entertainment space” and in actuality describes “a refusal to deal” with rival businesses.

“Live Nation refuses to rent its amphitheaters to other promoters,” the citation-heavy text reads in part, “thereby securing a competitive advantage in the promotions market. … This effort [to challenge the alleged conduct as tying, not an unlawful refusal to deal] is frequently made, but courts routinely reject it when, in substance, the plaintiff is asking the defendant to be forced to deal with its rivals.”

From there, the concise filing targets the “threadbare and conclusory” claims of the 30 states (including Washington, D.C.) that joined the Justice Department suit. Per Live Nation and its counsel (Latham & Watkins as well as Cravath, Swaine & Moore), the 22 plaintiffs with separate claims “merely incorporate by reference all of the preceding allegations” and cite the allegedly broken state-level laws. Not provided are “the elements of each state-law claim” and descriptions of “what conduct allegedly violates the state laws in question.”

Furthermore, the states “do not allege any details about the injuries or harm incurred—including, for example, what kind of harm was suffered, who suffered that harm, and whether the injured parties were” residing in the appropriate locations when the alleged conduct occurred.

Closing on the time front, the states’ claims “are time-barred, at least to some degree,” with the longest state-level statute of limitations at hand spanning six years, according to the defendant.As most know, Live Nation and Ticketmaster completed their merger in 2010. And as the Astroworld lawsuit defendant Live Nation hasn’t hesitated to reiterate, it was the Obama administration that gave the deal the green light, before it was allowed to stand (subject to an existing consent decree) under the Trump administration.

Following the point to its logical conclusion, with a trial expected to arrive in the Live Nation antitrust action in 2026 at the earliest, the case will play out, absent a dismissal, well after the quick-approaching presidential election is in the books. Nevertheless, it’ll be worth closely monitoring the legal battle (one of multiple hurdles Live Nation is facing) in the coming months.