If you’ve ever seen a concert on the Las Vegas Strip, you’ve probably bought that ticket through Ticketmaster, or even seen it at a venue affiliated with or owned by promoter Live Nation.
Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, controls at least 70% of the Las Vegas concert industry. And on April 15, a jury decided that it acts as a monopoly.
Nevada was one of 33 states in that antitrust case, which will soon enter another trial to determine remedies. Live Nation has vowed to appeal any decisions it sees as unfavorable. "The jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter," it said in a statement.
What could those remedies be, and how might they impact the local concert industry and its customers?
The one most talked about is the possible break off of Ticketmaster from Live Nation. With the latter promoting so many resident and touring shows and owning venues like House of Blues and Brooklyn Bowl, and the former being the exclusive ticket service for those shows and venues, it would mean music fans would be able to buy ticket from competitors like AXS, SeatGeek, and potential newcomers to the market.
Additionally, those venues — and those that currently book exclusively with Live Nation — might have to open up their calendar to rival promoters like AEG, which means a greater variety of shows for locals and visitors.
"That would be a very big deal," said John Katsilometes, entertainment reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "That would affect exclusive contracts at venues for residencies. It would open up all these venues."
Such a breakup could affect not only music fans, but also the casinos that have worked with Live Nation and Ticketmaster for decades.
"[The casinos] prefer to have a seamless booking system and ticketing system with whom you are working," Katsilometes said. "But I think logically, you'd have to be prepared to say, 'What if we don't have this locked in anymore? What if we are looking at free agents, promotion companies, and ticket platforms in the foreseeable future?' I think that anyone wise would at least be discussing what those options would be if this were to come to fruition and Live Nation and Ticketmaster were to break up."
Lawmakers accelerated their investigations of Live Nation and Ticketmaster when millions of Taylor Swift fans complained about being kicked out of Ticketmaster's queue haphazardly, the site crashing altogether, or not getting tickets at all (despite the fact that demand far outweighed the supply) for the artist's 2023 Eras Tour. It left many of them using secondary-market sites that charged prices way above face value. Swift's promoter, AEG — which owns ticketing service AXS — revealed that exclusivity deals between Ticketmaster and venues Swift wanted to use forced it to use its competitor's ticket site — a common argument used to accuse Ticketmaster of antitrust violations.
Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a visiting professor who specializes in antitrust law at Harvard Law School, stresses that fixing the system Live Nation is said to have broken involves opening up competition — which could force Ticketmaster specifically to improve operations. "Ticketmaster got big in the '70s and '80s because they were one of the first companies to use technology and use the electronic process to ticket events," Allensworth said. "They were that way because they faced a lot of competition. And I think the idea with this remedy should be to expose Ticketmaster to competition. That puts them, and also potentially competitors, back on that cutting edge."
Allensworth was also quick to remind concertgoers that any financial damages awarded likely won't go to ticket buyers. The court ascertained that Live Nation overcharged fans by $1.72 a ticket — an amount Live Nation disputes.
"Because this is a suit brought by [state] governments, it's not going to go directly back into the pockets of the people who bought the tickets like it would if it was a class action lawsuit," Allensworth said. "States can spend the money as they see fit. Usually they spend them on related projects and consumer protection. But to the extent that the consumers are going to win out here, to the extent that ticket buyers are going to win out, it's going to be long term in a better, more competitive environment, and that's going to require a lot more than even a multi-million dollar award. That's not enough money to really deter a company like Live Nation or Ticketmaster from doing these kinds of things in the future. So there will have to be something more meaningful imposed here as well."
Concertgoers are hoping that more competition would eventually result in lower ticket prices, especially as they have soared anywhere between 20-42% since 2021, and padding those ticket prices are various fees that have long been the bane of music fans' existence. But the legal system won't be addressing ticket prices specifically. "Antitrust doesn't actually have a lot [of options] that can help with those high prices," Allensworth said.
Both Allensworth and Katsilometes both said that it's market demand that controls prices. It's hard to see a remedy that brings down prices for the biggest acts, like the ones who play Sphere, recently declared the world's most successful arena venue. (Las Vegas has long been one of, if not the most expensive concert market in the U.S.) But over time, a systematic expansion of competition could ultimately benefit music fans' wallets. They just need to be patient — especially as appeals, negotiations, and possible implementation of divestitures could take years.
Katsilometes, for one, is hopeful. "I think what consumers are mostly interested in is being able to see a great show at an affordable price, no matter where the platform is."
Guests: John Katsilometes, entertainment columnist, Las Vegas Review-Journal; Rebecca Haw Allensworth, visiting professor, Harvard Law School
