A federal jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated an illegal monopoly; Judge Subramanian now orders a remedy schedule that could force a Ticketmaster divestiture.
A federal jury found on April 15 that Live Nation Entertainment and its Ticketmaster subsidiary operated an illegal monopoly in the primary ticketing and large amphitheater markets, and U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has since directed the parties to jointly propose a schedule for a remedy trial [1]. The jury also assessed a per-ticket overcharge of approximately $1.72, a figure that will factor into the damages and relief calculus heading into the next phase [1]. The verdict marks the first time a jury has returned a monopolization finding against a major live-entertainment conglomerate.
The case, United States v. Live Nation, is pending in the Southern District of New York before Judge Subramanian [2]. The plaintiffs include the DOJ Antitrust Division and a coalition of 33 states and the District of Columbia, represented in part by Winston & Strawn [2]. A separate trial settlement the DOJ reached with six states is now subject to mandatory Tunney Act review, under which the court must independently assess whether the proposed consent decree serves the public interest before entering it as a final judgment [1].
The remedy phase is the proceeding's central remaining battleground. The state coalition continues to press for structural relief, including a possible forced divestiture of Ticketmaster from Live Nation [1]. If the court orders divestiture, it would represent the first compelled breakup of a major entertainment company in decades and would establish a significant precedent for how courts treat platform businesses that bundle market positions across vertically integrated segments [1]. The distinction between behavioral remedies, such as licensing or conduct restrictions, and structural remedies, such as divestiture, is the core legal question the remedy trial must resolve.
Jeffrey Kessler led the trial team for the state plaintiffs at Winston & Strawn, while DOJ Antitrust Division leadership under Gail Slater has maintained a parallel enforcement posture [2]. The Tunney Act review of the federal settlement adds a second procedural track, requiring public comment and judicial scrutiny that could delay or reshape the federal consent decree independent of the state litigation's trajectory [1].
The parties must submit a joint scheduling proposal to Judge Subramanian, after which the court will set dates for briefing, expert disclosures, and the remedy trial itself. The outcome will determine the structural future of the live-entertainment ticketing industry and the scope of antitrust remedies available against integrated platform monopolists.