Ticketmaster's Legal Battle: Can DOJ Break the Monopoly?

Concert fans across America have long felt trapped by sky-high ticket fees and limited choices when buying tickets to see their favorite artists. Now, a landmark antitrust lawsuit threatens to reshape the live entertainment industry—but Live Nation-Ticketmaster isn't going down without a fight.

On November 18, 2025, the entertainment giant filed a motion for summary judgment, attempting to convince a federal judge to dismiss the case before it ever reaches trial. The move represents the company's latest effort to preserve its dominance over the concert ticketing market, a position that critics say has cost consumers billions in excessive fees while stifling competition.

The Stakes: Breaking Up a Live Entertainment Behemoth

The Department of Justice, alongside 40 state attorneys general, filed this landmark Sherman Act case in 2024 under the Biden administration. The plaintiffs allege that Live Nation-Ticketmaster wields monopoly power across multiple segments of the live events supply chain—from primary ticketing services for major venues to concert promotion and venue management—to systematically eliminate competition.

According to research published by the Progressive Policy Institute, the evidence is damning: Live Nation-Ticketmaster controls an estimated 80% of primary ticketing for major concert venues, holds a 60% market share in concert promotion, and controls 75% of ticket sales by venues under exclusive contracts.

If successful, the DOJ's case would likely result in breaking off Ticketmaster from Live Nation, eliminating what Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, describes as the company's "supercharged incentives to use its monopoly power across markets in the live events supply chain to foreclose competition."

Why Live Nation-Ticketmaster's Defense Falls Short

The company's motion for summary judgment rests on two primary arguments, both of which competition experts say fail to withstand scrutiny.

The "Forever Benefits" Fallacy

Live Nation-Ticketmaster's first defense centers on the 2010 merger that created the current entity. The company argues that because the DOJ approved that merger, it essentially validated the pro-competitive benefits of their vertical integration indefinitely. If the merger was beneficial then, the logic goes, how could their conduct now be anticompetitive?

This argument "defies reality," according to Moss's analysis in ProMarket. The DOJ has admitted to committing a fatal error in approving the 2010 merger. A decade later, under the first Trump administration, the department was forced to reopen the consent order after Live Nation-Ticketmaster violated its conditions. The centerpiece of that investigation included testimony from six anonymous venues reporting threats or harassment when they declined to use Ticketmaster's services.

The Competition "For the Contract" Theory

The company's second argument claims that meaningful competition exists in the bidding process when venues request proposals for ticketing services—what they call competition "for the contract." According to this theory, the DOJ is simply looking in the wrong place for competitive dynamics.

To support this position, Live Nation-Ticketmaster cites the early 2000s Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com case, where a court acknowledged this concept. However, as Moss points out, "market developments over the last 25 years have completely overtaken it." The 2010 merger fundamentally altered the competitive landscape, giving Live Nation-Ticketmaster such dominance that there's little opportunity for rivals to compete for these contracts in the first place.

The Market Definition Dispute

A critical battleground in the case centers on how to define the relevant market—a technical but crucial determination that could make or break the government's case.

The DOJ defines the market as "the provision of primary concert ticketing offerings to fans at major concert venues," specifically amphitheaters and arenas with seating capacity of 8,000 or more that host at least 10 concerts annually. In this market, Live Nation-Ticketmaster's 80% share clearly demonstrates monopoly power.

Live Nation-Ticketmaster counters that the market should include all venues—from massive stadiums to small concert halls and clubs. Under this broader definition, the company's market share drops below 50%, potentially undermining claims of monopoly power.

But this argument ignores basic consumer behavior. As Moss explains, "Most concert-goers are not often in the market for a stadium-grade show, and certainly not 10 times a year." The price ranges, artist caliber, and consumer demand for stadium shows versus small club performances are distinctly different. Taylor Swift concerts with four-digit ticket prices aren't interchangeable with local bands at neighborhood venues—and antitrust law recognizes these distinctions.

The Exclusive Contracts Problem

At the heart of the anticompetitive conduct allegations are Live Nation-Ticketmaster's exclusive contracts with venues. These agreements require venues to use Ticketmaster's services or risk having Live Nation withhold talent—a particularly powerful threat given the company's dominance in concert promotion.

The company's defense argues that venues "seek and prefer" exclusive contracts. However, when a monopolist establishes exclusives as the industry standard, venues have little choice but to accept them—especially when the contracts are structured to share monopoly profits that outweigh the benefits of more open competition.

The DOJ doesn't need to prove exact damages to prevail on this point. When seeking injunctive relief to stop anticompetitive behavior, the government can infer causation when conduct "reasonably appears capable" of maintaining a monopoly. Given Live Nation-Ticketmaster's long-standing dominance, calculating what "competitive" ticket fees would look like in a truly open market is virtually impossible.

What Happens If DOJ Backs Out?

With political winds shifting in Washington, there's speculation about whether the incoming Trump administration's DOJ will continue pursuing the case. However, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti made clear this week that state attorneys general are prepared to proceed independently if necessary.

According to reporting by MLex, Skrmetti confirmed that states will continue the litigation and move forward with the March 2026 trial even if federal prosecutors withdraw. This commitment reflects both the strength of the case and the intense public interest in holding Live Nation-Ticketmaster accountable.

Consumer Impact: Why This Matters

The practical implications for concert-goers are substantial. Consumers currently face monopoly ticket fees, outdated and glitchy technology, and virtually no choice in primary ticketing providers. Live Nation-Ticketmaster's practices in the resale market—including ticket "holdbacks," "slow ticketing," and "revolving bar codes"—make it difficult to use resale tickets, steering buyers back to the company's platform.

The public sentiment is unmistakable. Taylor Swift's June 2023 concert at Acrisure Stadium in Pittsburgh set an attendance record with 73,117 fans—the venue's largest audience ever—demonstrating the massive demand for live entertainment. Yet that same demand has left consumers feeling powerless against a ticketing system many view as rigged against them.

The Road Ahead

Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York now faces the decision of whether to grant Live Nation-Ticketmaster's motion for summary judgment or allow the case to proceed to trial. Legal experts following the case suggest the government's evidence is substantial enough to survive this motion, paving the way for a full trial in March 2026.

For millions of American music fans who have organized grassroots mobilization efforts to support the government's case, the stakes couldn't be higher. Breaking up Live Nation-Ticketmaster could finally introduce genuine competition to the primary ticketing market, potentially lowering fees, improving service quality, and expanding access to live entertainment.

As Moss concludes in her ProMarket analysis, allowing the DOJ's case to advance would give "everyone a fair shot at competing in the ticketing market and consumers reap the benefits." After decades of monopoly control, concert-goers deserve nothing less than their day in court—and the possibility of real change in how America experiences live music.