Live Nation is accused of systematically terrorizing the concert industry, using its dominance to intimidate venues that consider alternatives to Ticketmaster . According to testimony in the lawsuit against the company, many venues are afraid to switch ticketing providers, worried that Live Nation will pull concerts from their facilities. The tactic is a key element of the six-month antitrust trial underway in Manhattan , where the U.S. government is seeking to break up the entertainment giant.
See also: Google Maps: Live data for Tesla Supercharger availability
The most telling example of this tactic came during the testimony of Jack Groetzinger , CEO of SeatGeek . His company was in talks with the Dallas Cowboys to take over ticket sales at their stadium, but there was one major hurdle: “ the concert thing .” The team feared that if it left Ticketmaster , parent company Live Nation could pull concerts from the stadium, hurting a major source of revenue. The deal was eventually finalized and announced in 2018 , but for a while, as Groetzinger recalls , “ the concert thing was the one thing we couldn’t get past, and it looked like it might ruin the whole process .”
Live Nation ’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster created a behemoth that controls more than 80% of primary ticket sales at major concert venues and 75 % of ticket sales at exclusive venues. The company also owns 60% of the concert promotion market, creating a vertical integration that allows it to control the entire live event supply chain. This concentration of power has created an environment where Live Nation can influence tour schedules, artist fees, and venue revenues, while limiting consumer choice.
See also: CISA: ASUS Live Update Vulnerability in KEV Catalog
The strategy of “fear” of Live Nation
According to the affidavits, Live Nation is using its dominance to create a climate of fear in the industry. Many in the industry believe that Live Nation will block shows from venues that don’t use Ticketmaster. This real or perceived threat creates so much fear that some major venues refuse to switch to what they believe is a better ticketing product. This tactic has been documented in multiple cases, where venues that switched to competing platforms like SeatGeek found themselves blocked from major shows, forcing them to return to exclusivity with Ticketmaster.
To address this problem, SeatGeek developed an innovative but troubling solution: “ retaliation insurance .” The company offers venues to cover the revenue they would lose if Live Nation banned them from concerts. Groetzinger admitted that the idea made him “ really uncomfortable ,” as SeatGeek would have to set aside a large amount of money for the insurance. Even if it never had to pay, the company would have to offset those funds elsewhere in the contract, resulting in “ the venue getting a worse deal .” Still, SeatGeek ’s board ultimately agreed to the idea, and it secured the deal with the Cowboys .
From that point on, offering retaliation insurance became a last resort for SeatGeek . “ It’s really scary, but if we feel like we have no choice, we’ll do it ,” Groetzinger said . The development reveals the depth of Live Nation ’s influence and how smaller companies are forced to develop extreme strategies to compete in a market dominated by monopolistic practices.
See also: WhatsApp for iOS supports sharing Live Photos
The consequences for the industry and consumers
So far, two venues that signed up for retaliation insurance have claimed the provision was triggered — one of them was the Cowboys. In 2022, the team informed SeatGeek that it believed Live Nation had bypassed their stadium for a Coldplay. Because of its relationship with SeatGeek, the Cowboys did not collect the compensation at the time. This incident proves that fears of retaliation are not just theoretical, but have real implications for the day-to-day operation of the industry.
Live Nation ’s dominance has serious implications for the entire industry. Consumers face high prices due to Ticketmaster ’s excessive fees , known as the “ Ticketmaster tax ,” which include service, facilitation, processing and facility fees. Competitors like SeatGeek , which has just 2% of the primary ticket market, face high barriers to entry due to Live Nation ’s vertical integration . At the same time, independent venues and promoters are under pressure as Live Nation prioritizes its own venues over independents.
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster in 2024, involving more than 30 states. The government is seeking to break up the company, alleging violations of the Sherman Act through exclusive contracts with venues and threats to boycott artists. Jonathan Kanter, head of the Justice Department, has described the company as a “live events monster” that negatively impacts consumers, venues, promoters and artists.
