PPI Urges Judge to Reject Live Nation Settlement, Break Ticketmaster Into Multiple Companies

The Progressive Policy Institute is urging the federal judge reviewing the Justice Department’s proposed settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster to reject the agreement, arguing that meaningful competition would require not only separating Ticketmaster from Live Nation but breaking the ticketing giant into several smaller companies.

PPI filed its formal Tunney Act comments Thursday, one day before the September 4 deadline for public submissions on the proposed final judgment. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian must ultimately determine whether the settlement is in the public interest before it can receive final approval.

The Washington-based policy organization argues that the settlement has two “fatal flaws”: that it resulted from political interference in the government’s antitrust case and that its extensive behavioral restrictions leave Live Nation and Ticketmaster with essentially the same economic incentives and ability to protect Ticketmaster’s dominant position in primary ticketing.

“Behavioral remedies haven’t worked before, and there’s no reason to believe more of the same will work now,” PPI Vice President and Director of Competition Policy Diana Moss said. “The only remedy that truly restores competition is a structural one: break Ticketmaster off from Live Nation, then break it up.”

Break Ticketmaster ‘Off’ — Then ‘Up’

The second part of that prescription makes PPI’s proposal considerably more aggressive than simply unwinding the 2010 Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger.

The Justice Department’s original antitrust complaint expressly asked the court to order the divestiture of “at minimum, Ticketmaster,” along with any additional relief necessary to address the alleged anticompetitive harm. The federal government ultimately abandoned that structural demand in the settlement reached with Live Nation this year, instead agreeing to a package of contract restrictions, ticketing interoperability requirements, fee limits, venue provisions and compliance monitoring.

PPI argues that merely turning Ticketmaster into an independent company would no longer go far enough. Citing the government’s allegation that Ticketmaster controls more than 80% of primary ticketing services for major concert venues, the organization says a standalone Ticketmaster would still leave venues with too little choice.

Instead, PPI says Ticketmaster itself should be divided into several primary ticketing companies capable of competing against each other for venue business. It suggests potential buyers could include existing primary ticketing rivals as well as resale marketplaces seeking to expand into the primary market.

That would move considerably beyond the federal settlement currently before Subramanian, which keeps Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster intact while attempting to introduce competition within the existing structure.

PPI Targets Ticketmaster’s Role in ‘Open Distribution’

PPI devotes particular attention to one of the settlement’s signature ticketing provisions: the planned “Open Distribution and Ticket Authentication” system.

Under the proposed judgment, major venues using Ticketmaster’s back-end technology would be permitted to allocate tickets to eligible competing primary marketplaces. Those competitors could handle the consumer-facing sale, payment processing, refunds and other marketplace functions, while Ticketmaster would continue providing core back-end infrastructure including inventory management, barcode and token generation, ticket authentication and entry validation.

The Justice Department argues that separating the marketplace from the back-end function will lower barriers to entry and allow competing marketplaces to fight for primary ticket inventory without also having to replace a venue’s underlying ticketing infrastructure. Ticketmaster would also be prohibited from using contractual, technological or pricing measures to restrict a venue’s choice of eligible providers.

PPI sees that structure very differently. Its filing argues that competitors would remain dependent on Ticketmaster for critical functions required to make their tickets work, leaving the incumbent with opportunities to frustrate competition that would be difficult for either rivals or regulators to detect.

The group raises hypothetical examples including delayed authentication, slower barcode generation and data bottlenecks created through Ticketmaster-controlled APIs. PPI does not allege that Ticketmaster is presently engaging in those practices under the yet-to-be-implemented system, but argues that keeping the company in control of the infrastructure gives it both the ability and incentive to disadvantage companies trying to compete with its marketplace.

That argument goes to a central tension in the settlement: whether opening Ticketmaster infrastructure to competing storefronts creates a genuinely competitive primary market or reinforces Ticketmaster’s position as the technological layer on which that competition depends.

Previous Conduct Remedies Loom Over New Deal

PPI also points to the history of the consent decree imposed when Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010.

That decree included prohibitions intended to prevent Live Nation from conditioning access to concerts on a venue’s use of Ticketmaster or retaliating against venues choosing competing ticketing providers. A decade later, the Justice Department alleged Live Nation had repeatedly violated those restrictions, prompting an amended and strengthened consent decree in 2020.

The DOJ itself recounts that history in its Competitive Impact Statement supporting the new settlement, stating that Live Nation had engaged in conduct the government viewed as violating the original judgment. The new agreement once again relies heavily on restrictions against retaliation, conditioning and content steering, along with firewalls and a court-appointed monitor.

PPI argues that history should make the court particularly skeptical of another behavioral remedy requiring years of monitoring and enforcement.

The organization similarly dismisses the settlement’s provisions involving 13 designated “Divestiture Venues” as insufficient structural relief. The proposed judgment requires Live Nation to terminate or modify contracts involving booking, promotion and certain control or ownership interests at the listed venues, and prevents the company from subsequently exercising control over them. DOJ describes those provisions as a divestiture of control, rather than a sale of 13 physical venues. PPI argues the provisions remain far too limited to address Live Nation’s broader market position.

Political Questions Remain Part of Tunney Review

PPI’s other major objection focuses on how the federal settlement was reached.

Its filing cites recent Wall Street Journal reporting that President Donald Trump personally directed a senior Justice Department official to settle the Live Nation case after meeting with Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino. TicketNews previously reported that the account added to earlier disclosures showing unusual White House involvement in negotiations that ultimately led the federal government to abandon the breakup remedy it had originally sought.

The Journal’s reporting did not establish a quid pro quo, and Live Nation has maintained that Rapino did not discuss substantive settlement terms with Trump during their February meeting.

PPI nevertheless argues the circumstances reinforce the need for Subramanian to reject the proposed judgment. Under the Tunney Act process, the court is reviewing whether the agreement negotiated by DOJ serves the public interest; PPI is effectively asking the judge to withhold approval and force the government and Live Nation back toward a settlement containing structural relief.

The public comment period closes Friday. The Justice Department must review the submissions and file the comments, along with its responses, with the court before Subramanian makes his final determination.