On bended knee is no way to be free
–Guaranteed by Eddie Vedder
What do Taylor Swift, Eddie Vedder, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have in common? The answer may not be immediately obvious. And yet, the pop star, grunge icon, and federal executive department all share a vehement disapproval of Ticketmaster, a subsidiary of Live Nation, which collectively forms the world’s leading live entertainment company.[1] In recent years, Swift expressed her disappointment with Ticketmaster through public outreach to her fanbase, while decades earlier, Vedder turned to forms of protest and emotionally charged lyrics to draw attention to Ticketmaster’s problematic practices. [2] As for the DOJ, the Attorney General brought the ticketing giant to court.[3]
On May 23, 2024, the DOJ filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ticketmaster LLC, alleging “Live Nation-Ticketmaster unlawfully exercises its monopoly power in violation of […] the Sherman Act.”[4] The complaint asserted five federal causes of action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, including monopolization and exclusive dealing. The amended complaint now includes 39 states plus the District of Columbia and asserts an additional thirty-four separate “violation of state law” claims.[5]
On January 23rd of this year, the Court inquired about staying state law claims in hopes of streamlining trial, which is currently scheduled for March 2nd, assuming Live Nation doesn’t prevail on its motion for summary judgment.[6] This request illustrated the sheer magnitude and complexity of the lawsuit – and according to U.S. District Judge Subramanian, if the government does not consent to staying the state claims, the consequence could be the difference between a trial that lasts five weeks and one that lasts five years.[7] What’s the history of this case, and what does Judge Subramanian’s recent proposal suggest about its future?
For decades, artists, fans, and competitors in the live entertainment industry have expressed concern and even anger around Live Nation’s growth in scope, power, and control. After its 2010 merger with Ticketmaster, the company became Live Nation Entertainment, Inc: a one-stop shop for all music needs, serving as production, promotion, and management for music events and venues across the globe, with artist services and ticketing capabilities through its Ticketmaster subsidiary.[8] While this may sound convenient, it has produced major downsides for all parties, ranging from mere inconveniences to real, actionable harm that cripples an optimal music economy. By 2024, the government finally got involved by filing suit against the ticketing behemoth for “monopolization and other unlawful conduct that thwarts competition in markets across the live entertainment industry.”[9]
The complaint cautions against the dangers of this unchecked power: ticket-buyers pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, the music industry suffers from loss in ticketing innovation, domestic fans pay more than fans in other countries pay for tickets, and venues get stuck with Ticketmaster, even when its output is less than satisfactory. [10] Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer stated, “Our antitrust lawsuit seeks to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists.”[11]
In September 2024, Live Nation filed a motion to dismiss parts of the case, but in March of 2025, the Court denied it.[12] Seven months later, Live Nation filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the government “gerrymandered” evidence and failed to sufficiently show it holds monopoly power in any relevant market.[13] The DOJ fired back in their response, arguing Live Nation’s motion “collapses in the face of evidence,” citing to reams of proof that Live Nation used “interlocking monopolies” to harm competition.[14] The Court has yet to rule on the motion for summary judgment.
On January 23, 2026, Judge Subramanian asked federal and state authorities if they’d consent to staying the state law claims so the court could focus on federal claims in the upcoming trial.[15] A stay is an action taken by a court to stop a legal proceeding or the actions of a party, often issued for the purpose of conserving judicial resources or allowing related matters to be resolved first.[16]
“I’m trying to cut through this,” Judge Subramanian said. “I’m trying to punt the ball — punt to the future.”[17] It’s clear his goal is expediency and efficiency – things that should appeal to the masses. Yet in a reply to Judge Subramanian’s pitch, Adam Gitlin of D.C.’s Attorney General’s office explained the government would need time to consider, and he would “‘provide some explanation’ to the court in the event the states do not agree to the judge’s suggested course of action.”[18]
On January 30, 2026, the Judge got his answer and, as promised, a simple explanation: state and federal authorities urged Judge Subramanian not to pause their state-law claims, arguing that handling all claims at once “will be most efficient.”[19] Their reasoning, while simple, is an accurate statement given the plentiful overlap between state and federal claims. Beyond its legal merit, their response sends a strong message: the prosecutors aren’t budging an inch.
The tenacity and resoluteness of the government’s efforts indicate this trial is sure to be a fierce one. To that end, most people agree it should be. Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s grip on the market causes more than economic pain and legal injustice; it has the far-reaching power to ruin the experience of live music for fans and artists alike. Swift communicated it plainly when she said her experience with Ticketmaster for her Eras tour was “excruciating for me.”[20]When Ticketmaster was set to merge with Live Nation back in 2009, Eddie Vedder predicted the future when he said, “This could get worse if someone doesn’t fight it now.”[21] Over fifteen years later, it’s clear Vedder’s prediction was correct. The ticketing giant has been pushing the limits of antitrust law too far for too long. Fortunately for all but Live Nation-Ticketmaster, the developments of this case so far indicate the time has come for structural change at last.
[1] Live Nation Entertainment, Forbes: Companies, https://www.forbes.com/companies/live-nation-entertainment/ (last visited Feb. 10, 2026).
[2] Samantha Kubota, Taylor Swift speaks out after Ticketmaster fumbles tour ticket sales, TODAY (Nov. 18, 2022), https://www.today.com/popculture/taylor-swift-speaks-out-ticketmaster-rcna57812; Ed Power, How Pearl Jam took on the music industry and lost – but predicted the future, INDT. (July 6, 2019), https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/music/features/pearl-jam-ticketmaster-1995-boycott-booking-fees-gigs-ticket-prices-a8989516.html.
[3] Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry, U.S. Dep’t Just.: Archives (May 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert.
[4] Id.
[5] Amended Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial at 85-136, U.S. v Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2024).
[6] Pete Brush, Live Nation Antitrust Judge Wants to ‘Punt’ on State Claims, LAW360 (Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.law360.com/media/articles/2433603/live-nation-antitrust-judge-wants-to-punt-on-state-claims?copied=1.
[7] Id.
[8] Live Nation Entertainment Inc: Overview, GlobalData, https://www.globaldata.com/company-profile/live-nation-entertainment-inc/#:~:text=The%20company%20promotes%20live%20music,sales%20through%20its%20Ticketmaster%20platform (last visited Feb. 10, 2026).
[9] U.S. Dep’t Just., supra note 3.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] See U.S. v Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y. Mar 14, 2025).
[13] Daniel Tencer, Live Nation Files Motion to End US’s Antitrust Lawsuit, Music Business Worldwide (Nov. 20, 2025), https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/live-nation-files-motion-to-end-us-dojs-antitrust-lawsuit/#:~:text=In%20a%20memorandum%20supporting%20its,legal%20criteria%20for%20monopoly%20power.
[14] Dylan Smith, DOJ Pushes for Jury Trial in Live Nation Antitrust Battle – High-Stakes Summary Judgment Hearing Set for January 23rd, Digital Music News (Dec. 18, 2025), https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/12/18/doj-live-nation-lawsuit-summary-judgment/#:~:text=,%E2%80%9D; Dave Clark, DOJ, States Tell Judge Live Mation’s Alleged “Interlocking Monopolies” Must Be Decided by a Jury, TicketNews, (Dec. 2025), https://www.ticketnews.com/2025/12/doj-states-tell-judge-live-nations-alleged-interlocking-monopolies-must-be-decided-by-a-jury/.
[15] Brush, supra note 6.
[16] stay, Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute (last reviewed Aug. 2021), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stay.
[17] Brush, supra note 6.
[18] Id.
[19] Ben Adlin, Live Nation Plaintiff States Fight Plan to Stay Antitrust Claims, LAW360 (Jan. 30, 2026), https://www.law360.com/articles/2436220/live-nation-plaintiff-states-fight-plan-to-stay-antitrust-claims.
[20] Frank Pallotta, Taylor Swift: Ticketmaster fiasco ‘excruciating for me’, CNN (Nov. 18, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/18/media/taylor-swift-ticketmaster.
[21] Power, supra note 2.