Live Nation Readies for Possible Loss of Ticketing Exclusivity as DOJ Trial Nears

All eyes are on the March 2026 antitrust trial that could reshape the U.S. live music industry.

Live Nation Entertainment is preparing for a seismic test of its business model as the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust case against the company heads to trial in March 2026. At issue is whether Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster have unlawfully monopolized the live events industry, including through long-term exclusive ticketing contracts with venues.

The DOJ’s Case

On May 23, 2024, the Justice Department, joined by 30 state and district attorneys general, filed a sweeping civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the company “unlawfully exercises its monopoly power” across concert promotion and ticketing, depriving fans of innovation while forcing them to pay higher prices than in other countries.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland was blunt:

“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators. The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco echoed that sentiment, calling the case part of a broader push against corporate misconduct:

“Today’s complaint alleges that Live Nation-Ticketmaster have engaged in anticompetitive conduct to cement their dominance of the live concert market and act as the gatekeeper for an entire industry.”

The DOJ argues that Live Nation’s so-called “flywheel” business model—using revenue from ticketing and sponsorship to lock artists into promotion deals, and then using those deals to pressure venues into exclusivity—creates a self-reinforcing monopoly. Alleged tactics include:

• Long-term exclusive contracts preventing venues from working with rival ticketing services.

• Retaliation against venues and promoters that attempt to compete.

• Strategic acquisitions of regional promoters to eliminate competition.

• Restricting artists’ access to key venues unless they use Live Nation’s promotion services.

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter summed up the DOJ’s view:

“The live music industry in America is broken because Live Nation-Ticketmaster has an illegal monopoly. Our antitrust lawsuit seeks to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists.”

Live Nation’s Response

Despite the sweeping allegations, Live Nation executives maintain that the company does not force exclusivity on venues. Speaking at the Bank of America Securities Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference last week, Live Nation president and CFO Joe Berchtold suggested that exclusivity is primarily driven by venues themselves.

“Most of the things that we think are the greatest concern around exclusivity, length of exclusivity, these are not things that are ultimately drivers of our success,” Berchtold said. “If [venues are] told that they can’t auction off exclusivity, then fine, we’ll adjust.”

Berchtold emphasized that Live Nation is operating as usual and that only a handful of executives are focused on preparing for the DOJ trial.

What’s at Stake

The case could alter the balance of power across the $22 billion global live entertainment industry. Live Nation, headquartered in Beverly Hills, owns or controls more than 265 venues in North America, including over 60 of the top 100 amphitheaters in the United States. Ticketmaster, its wholly-owned subsidiary, remains the dominant ticketing platform, multiple times larger than its closest rival.

If the DOJ succeeds, structural remedies—potentially including breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster—could restore competition in ticketing and promotions. Such a move would open the door for independent promoters, rival ticketing platforms, and potentially lower fees for fans.