•
A Manhattan jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable on every claim the plaintiff states brought to trial. Here is the docket history, what the April 2026 verdict decided, and what is still open.
On April 15, 2026, a jury in the Southern District of New York found Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster liable on every federal and state claim the plaintiff states took to trial. The states proved unlawful monopolization of primary ticketing services and of large amphitheaters, plus an unlawful tie between Live Nation's amphitheaters and its concert promotion services. Paul, Weiss published a breakdown of the verdict the same week.
What makes this case unusual is not the verdict. It is that the Department of Justice, which filed the case, was no longer at the plaintiffs' table when the jury returned it.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Caption | United States and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C. |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Docket | 1:24-cv-03973-AS |
| Judge | Arun Subramanian |
| Filed | May 23, 2024 |
| Claims | Sherman Act monopolization and tying, plus parallel state antitrust claims |
| Status | Liability verdict for the plaintiff states, April 15, 2026; remedies and post-trial motions pending |
Live Nation is the largest concert promoter in the United States. Ticketmaster is the largest primary ticketing platform. They have been one company since a 2010 merger that the government approved with conditions.
The government's theory is that the combined company used its promotion business to lock venues into long ticketing contracts, and used its amphitheater portfolio to steer artists and tours in ways that competitors could not match. The complaint identified conduct across six markets in the live music business. The core allegation is that Ticketmaster's share of primary ticketing for major concert venues is a result of that leverage rather than of a better product.
Live Nation's defense was that promoters and venues choose it because it delivers full arenas and predictable settlements, and that ticketing fees are set by venues, not by Ticketmaster.
The Department of Justice maintains a public case page with the filings. The sequence that matters:
Two tracks now run in parallel on one docket. One ends in a negotiated consent decree. The other ends in whatever remedy the court orders after a jury has already found liability.
Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires monopoly power plus the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power through something other than a superior product. Tying under Section 1 requires a seller with power in one market to condition the sale of that product on the buyer taking a second one.
The states had to convince a jury of two things that antitrust defendants usually contest hard. First, that the relevant market is narrow enough that Live Nation holds power in it, rather than the broad live entertainment market the company prefers. Second, that venue and artist contracts reflect coercion rather than ordinary bargaining.
The jury agreed with the states on both. That finding does not by itself break up the company. Structural relief is for the judge.
Three things to watch:
Post-trial motions come first. Live Nation will move for judgment as a matter of law and, failing that, for a new trial. Those motions have to be resolved before an appeal to the Second Circuit can start.
The remedy phase decides whether this verdict changes anything for ticket buyers. A liability finding without divestiture or conduct restrictions leaves the same company doing similar business under closer supervision. The DOJ's own settlement declined to seek a Ticketmaster divestiture, which tells you where the federal government landed on that question.
Tunney Act review of the DOJ settlement runs on its own schedule. A district judge must find the proposed final judgment is in the public interest. Public comments filed during the Federal Register window become part of that record.
Everything above sits in one docket in one court. New entries appear there before they appear in coverage, and post-trial motion practice tends to move in bursts.
Search the case on PacerPlus to pull the current docket and filings: United States v. Live Nation Entertainment. If you would rather be told when something lands than check by hand, case alerts watch the docket and email you on new activity.
For remedy practice specifically, the judge matters as much as the record. Judge Subramanian's history with post-trial motions and equitable relief is worth pulling before you predict an outcome, which is what the federal judge lookup tool is for.
The RealPage litigation raises the same question from the other direction, whether pricing conduct mediated by software is still an agreement. We covered the DOJ settlement and its terms in RealPage and algorithmic rent pricing. For a monopolization case at a later stage, where liability is settled and the fight is entirely about remedy, see the Google search monopoly appeal. The FTC's case against Amazon, still headed for trial, is covered in FTC v. Amazon.