US Regulators Sue Live Nation for Alleged Monopoly Practices in Live Music Industry

US regulators have sued Live Nation, accusing the entertainment giant of using illegal tactics to maintain a monopoly over the live music industry.

The lawsuit from the Department of Justice said the firm’s practices had kept out competitors, and led to higher ticket prices and worse service for customers.

Attorney General Merrick Garland called on the courts to break up the company.

Live Nation said in a statement on its website that claims that it wielded monopoly power were “absurd”.

It said the lawsuit “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices” citing online ticket scalping, artist popularity and higher production costs.

Along with its subsidiary, Ticketmaster, Live Nation puts on concerts, sells tickets and owns venues, serving multiple roles that the Department of Justice said had turned it into a “gatekeeper” for the industry.

It owns more than 250 venues in the US and manages about 60% of concert promotions at major venues nationwide, according to the lawsuit, which was brought by the federal government’s Department of Justice, as well as 30 states.

The company also controls approximately 80% of all major entertainment ticket sales via Ticketmaster, the lawsuit said.

It said the company had maintained its position by using exclusive long-term deals, threatening venues that used rival ticketing firms, acquiring potential competitors, tying use of its venues to its promotion services, and deploying other practices.

Mr Garland said the result was that venues had fewer “real choices” of ticketing services and Ticketmaster could impose “seemingly endless” fees on fans.

He said the firm had also squeezed out smaller promoters and limited artists’ opportunities to perform.

“Live Nation controls the live entertainment industry in the United States because it is breaking the law,” he said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit.

“It is time to break it up,” he added.

Live Nation said the lawsuit reflected political pressures and a White House that had turned over competition enforcement “to a populist urge that simply rejects how antitrust law works”.

“Some call this “Anti-Monopoly”, but in reality it is just anti-business,” it said.

It said its share of the market had been shrinking and its profit margin of 1.4% was the “opposite of monopoly power”.