US Sues To Break Up Ticketmaster Owner, Live Nation (nytimes.com) 60
The Justice Department on Thursday said it was suing Live Nation Entertainment [non-paywalled link], the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, asking a court to break up the company over claims it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry. From a report: In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticketing contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening its rivals with financial retribution. Those tactics, the government argues, have resulted in higher ticket prices for consumers and have stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry.
"It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster," Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which is being filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation's merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry. Live Nation's scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.
"It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster," Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which is being filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation's merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry. Live Nation's scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.
This will lower prices across the board (Score:5, Interesting)
Expect to see inflation come down *real* fast *real* soon.
Re: (Score:2)
if you're wondering why everybody's talking about cutting prices now no, it's not user demand cutting back, it's fear. Fear of anti-trust law enforcement. Expect to see inflation come down *real* fast *real* soon.
Uh, when was the last time you saw the US Government do anything at the speed of “*real* fast *real* soon”?
You know what they also call monopolies that have grown that big and powerful? Donors. I wouldn’t be holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Any time the banks and Wall Street need to leech off the taxpayers to protect themselves from their incompetence, the U.S. government moves at the speed of light.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, when was the last time you saw the US Government do anything at the speed of âoe*real* fast *real* soonâ? Any time the banks and Wall Street need to leech off the taxpayers to protect themselves from their incompetence, the U.S. government moves at the speed of light.
This is why it's hard to swallow when anything moderately progressive gets gummed up in congress and everybody starts spouting about gridlock. See a big corporation say they'll stubbed their financial toe and those bastards can breakneck approve taxpayer handouts for them in a week or less. It's just a matter of incentive. Maybe if we could figure out how to bribe officials for representation as commoners. Perhaps a go-fund-me?
Re:This will lower prices across the board (Score:5, Insightful)
A better way would be to vote out every incumbent every election. Without people being in office for so long they can't build up their bribery, er, political donation contacts.
Granted, this will never happen, but that is the most effective way to deal with this.
Re: This will lower prices across the board (Score:4, Insightful)
Inexperienced lawmakers are easy marks for lobbyists--and having little hope of re-election (in your scenario) might be eager to win the favor of someone who can get them a job in a couple years.
Having carrier politicians is bad when a shitty politician has a long career, but having an amateur legislature will produce worse results.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine any other occupation where a lack of experience is seen by some as a positive note. All that would happen is even heavier reliance on bureaucrats and lobbyists to write legislation. It's like insisting first year med students would make way better doctors than someone with 20 years under their belt. It's absurd, and demonstrates the nihilism and idiocy of populist politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to take more than that. "Throw the bums out" has been a thing for decades, but the two major parties keep making more bums. Or fielding even worse recycled bums against the current crop.
Re: (Score:1)
A better way would be to vote out every incumbent every election.
When I don't like either candidate which happens to be most of the time this is my strategy. Vote for the challenger.
To me though the better solution which is also not achievable is to stop demanding the government to do more things for us. The more they do, the more power it has and is a lightning rod for lobbyists and others seeking influence. If they can't do much, no one would try to covet favor and we'd get the things people are actually willing to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because a sizable (at least half) number of the citizenry don't want "progressive", leftist, liberal legislation, programs and laws to come about....hence our representatives oppose it in houses of congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because a sizable (at least half) number of the citizenry don't want "progressive", leftist, liberal legislation, programs and laws to come about....hence our representatives oppose it in houses of congress.
Typically, the moderately progressive policies get 70% and up in national polling. Look at the recent debacles over abortion. Polls have shown that in the 65% and up range for the general public for decades, yet our politicians act as if the 35% are so outraged that the 65% need to STFU and die.
I'm not gonna rise to the "leftist" bait. Sometimes logical, rational, compassionate progress isn't about pushing the nonsense the far right is constantly prattling on about. But it's fun to use those tiny little edg
Re: (Score:2)
Well, national polls in the US can be a bit deceptive...since some states have VASTLY larger populations than others....and we all are still pretty much citizens of our state and THEN citizens of the United States..
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, the moderately progressive policies get 70% and up in national polling.
Meanwhile, here in the <sarcasm>Red State MAGA Land</sarcasm> known as Portland Oregon, all of the "progressive" candidates got their clocks cleaned in primary elections, by middle-of-the-road Democrats. If they can't win a primary election here what chance do you suppose they have in a general election in a purple/reddish Rust Belt State? Progressives look at someone like AOC and think they have the body politic with them. I look at AOC and think the idiot [wikipedia.org] she ran against deserved to lose be
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, the moderately progressive policies get 70% and up in national polling.
Meanwhile, here in the <sarcasm>Red State MAGA Land</sarcasm> known as Portland Oregon, all of the "progressive" candidates got their clocks cleaned in primary elections, by middle-of-the-road Democrats. If they can't win a primary election here what chance do you suppose they have in a general election in a purple/reddish Rust Belt State? Progressives look at someone like AOC and think they have the body politic with them. I look at AOC and think the idiot [wikipedia.org] she ran against deserved to lose because he didn't bother to campaign or otherwise take her seriously. If he had been a little less complacent she'd still be a nobody.
Side note: You can cherry pick many progressive policies that are popular. I'd dispute that choice is one of them. Choice is a liberal policy, not a progressive one, and there's a huge difference.
Unfortunately, I live in a red-red-red state. Choice is seen as progressive and dangerous by our government officials, and a large enough contingent of our half brain dead population seem to fall in line with that thought, even when they agree with the dangerous, progressive policy, like abortion rights and recreational marijuana. When you live in backwards land, where there are enough people wanting 1950s norms to return, anything resulting in freedom seems like progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should move and/or try having less contempt for your neighbors?
It's a hostage situation (Score:1)
There are politicians like Elizabeth Warren that want to fix that, but I mean she's just so annoying right? She comes off like a know it all school marm. Like the kid in your class that reminded teacher there was supposed to be a quiz today.
Now, that's a stupid reason to let Wall Street hold us hostage, but a reason's a reason...
Re: This will lower prices across the board (Score:2)
Americans could do the simple and reasonable things and quash citizens united, no more money in politics.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the OP was stating that TM/LN will lower prices almost immediately in the hopes of making this prosecution appear unnecessary. I don't necessarily believe that will actually happen, but I believe that was what the OP was trying to state.
This case is being
Re: (Score:3)
if you're wondering why everybody's talking about cutting prices now no, it's not user demand cutting back, it's fear. Fear of anti-trust law enforcement. Expect to see inflation come down *real* fast *real* soon.
This is an election year. This is a plea for lobbying money. Officials will be spouting off a lot of nonsense about breaking up big businesses, Lobbying coffers will be replenished. We will hear nothing more about breaking up big business, and more than likely briefly after the election we'll hear we need to supplement most of these businesses with taxpayer funds or else we'll all die.
Re: (Score:1)
Expect to see inflation come down *real* fast *real* soon.
Inflation is primarily being driven by the vast amount of money being PRINTED into existence. How the fuck do you think companies cutting prices in one sector is going to affect that? Enlighten us with your wisdom.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect to see inflation come down *real* fast *real* soon.
Inflation is primarily being driven by the vast amount of money being PRINTED into existence. How the fuck do you think companies cutting prices in one sector is going to affect that? Enlighten us with your wisdom.
Nope. Inflation is primarily being caused by companies raising prices to have higher profits [yahoo.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Oh man...good one.
Not sure how you managed to type that in with a straight face....but kudos, that was hilarious!!
Yeah...I don't see the current administration being able to quickly make up for 3+ years of fucking everything up....
I especially can't see fixing ticket fees helping the larger economy in any viable way.
Re: This will lower prices across the board (Score:2)
I don't think the commenter was referring to inflation as a whole, just inflated ticket prices and fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this affected some Congresscritter/Senator directly... Their kid had to pay an insane amount to go see Taylor Swift.
Re: (Score:2)
None of anti-trust law has to do with consumer prices. Setting high prices isn't an anti-trust issue unless you agree with someone else to do it. In fact... lowering price can be an anti-trust issue, it's a classic goal to use your power and wealth to undercut and put competitors out of business.
The only thing the Left and Right agree on (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw Ticketmaster with a cactus.
Last time I used them the ticket was ~$90, the fee on each was just under $20, per ticket.
Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
How many decades too late?
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Informative)
Three. Pearl Jam sued Ticketmaster in 1994.
Re: (Score:2)
Three. Pearl Jam sued Ticketmaster in 1994.
And Ticketmaster has only had three decades to grow their political clout and power?
I’d expect Ticketmaster being broken up about as fast.
Its an Election year folks. ALL lies are fair game, mainly because voters will believe it every time. Besides, lowering prices in order to try and hide an obvious recession, just makes the bipartisan corruption creating that recession look even more pathetic.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, lowering prices in order to try and hide an obvious recession
Who is lowering prices?
What observables make you say there's an obvious recession?
Very responsive governance, guys! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government, and justice, have never been known for speed.
In fact, often, speed causes errors. So while I agree with this lawsuit, I'm not sure we should be reacting "quickly."
Only 29 states? (Score:2)
In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia
Why only 29?
The sweeping lawsuit is a product of a more than two-year-long investigation into the company that has come under growing public scrutiny since late 2022, following a fiasco over presales for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour.
These problems always persist until they affect someone important.
in certain instances, allegedly blocked venues from even being able to use multiple ticketers for events.
I would also like to meet whoever decides when to use the word "allegedly".
On a couple of occasions where I bought tickets, I have actively looked for a non-Ticketmaster options and had no luck. I couldn't even come to the ticket office in-person and buy a ticket.
Re:allegedly (Score:2)
I would also like to meet whoever decides when to use the word "allegedly".
Allegedly is used when a matter is still before the courts and has not been decided. You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
This could have been prevented (Score:5, Insightful)
Had TicketMaster/LiveNation not been allowed to buy up all the competition, this wouldn't be an issue. This is literally, in the truest sense of the word, trying to close the gate after the cows have left. None of these purchases should have been allowed.
This case will deliberately be dragged out for as long as possible, all the while people who want to see concerts will be forced to pay exorbitant prices for tickets, if they can even get tickets at all since the majority of tickets are bought by resellers and scalpers.
Re: (Score:2)
since the majority of tickets are bought by resellers and scalpers.
I agree with what you said except the last line.... TicketMaster is using dynamic pricing to replace resellers and scalpers, raising prices (and profits) for their own benefit!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a change. The biggest scalping operation is owned by Tickemaster.
Re: This could have been prevented (Score:2)
One of us was grossly misinformed about what a cow is, and now I'm worried it was me.
Big Tech Next! (Score:2)
Great!
Do Big Tech next!
Or, you know - address the root cause and stop all the crazy mergers & acquisitions...
How about going after monopolies that matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Judge Jackson's judgement was to break Microsoft into an OS company and a separate applications (Office ...) company.
The U.S. government did not follow it.
End of story.
Fun Fact (Score:2)
Before Microsoft was sued by the federal government for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft had approximately two lobbyists in Washington and spent a few tens of thousands per year.
Guess how many lobbyists they have, and how much they spend now?
Re:How about going after monopolies that matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Those monopolies have a less visual effect on the public than Ticketmaster/Live Nation.
Live Nation is often the promoter for many events - from concerts to other things. Because they're with Ticketmaster, those events only use TIcketmaster locations.
Artists playing live events must use Live Nation (many big artists have tried and failed to skirt around using Live Nation and Ticketmaster - they find they get completely shut out because basically all venues that matter are either Ticketmaster controlled or Live Nation plays heavily there).
It's visible in that anytime any big act plays, people get screwed over. From fans having to pay hundreds of dollars for a ticket, to those who cannot buy a ticket because they sell out instantly, it's just something that's too visible. Everyone's been screwed over by the company.
It's basically a monopoly and monopsony. If you're an artist, you're forced to deal with Ticketmaster/Live Nation to do your touring and concert promotions. If you're a fan, you've got to deal with them to buy your ticket to see the event. Breaking them up would be highly visible way of "government doing something".
It's also an industry where no one is happy - artists hate dealing with them, and pretty much all consumers hate dealing with them. There are basically no positive news stories about Ticketmaster - everyone has a bad interaction.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC has also sued [slashdot.org] Amazon [ftc.gov], although that isn't expected to go to trial for a long while yet [reuters.com].
So, yes, they are going after "monopolies that matter"...thanks for noticing.
As best I know, Microsoft isn't under investigation for any recent antitrust shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Monopolies aren't illegal. And they aren't going after ticket master because they are a monopoly. They are going after them for "maintaining a monopoly" or "monopolzing". That is a verb, not a noun.
I'm with you in general and can come up with some examples myself, but I'm curious if you even know what Amazon, Google and Microsoft have *specifically* done that would make them run afoul of anti-trust legislation. Being a monopoly isn't one of the them.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on which doctrine you use to define a monopoly.
I use the pre-Reagan definition: they stiffle competition and prevent newcomers from entering the markets they occupy.
Most judges unfortunately go with the Reagan doctrine which is solely based on the criterion of product prices, i.e. do the monopolies abuse their position to engage in price gouging.
Cleverly, Bezos has always stuck to his policy of charging as low as possible. So price-wise, the customer has always won with Amazon, and Amazon is no
Re: (Score:2)
We've been BORKED. time to use that as a term! (not as it was used in stopping Bork from getting even more disastrous influence. we're all the ones who have been Borked.)
Break them up? Bury them in unmarked graves. (Score:2)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca] (circa 2018)
To say that Ticketmaster is despicable is not saying enough. Very few companies are so irredeemably slimy. 18th century bodysnatchers in England had better control of their ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
No. A grave - even an unmarked one - is too good for Ticketbastard. Drive a stake through its heart. Dismember the corpse. Have an ethical competitor sell tickets to an event where attendees and fucked-over artists get to piss on Ticketbastard's ashes. Let it be a cautionary tale. Let it be remembered.
Why? (Score:2)
I can't believe we're putting this much energy into Ticketmaster. If you feel like the tickets are too expensive, don't go to the concert.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other companies (like Google, Microsoft, and Cisco), whose products we absolutely depend on to run the world. They're going out of their way to make sure no one can compete with them, and we continue to ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Sure, you can choose not to go to the concert. But if you're a musician trying to earn a living through performing arts, you have no choice, you can't just *not* do business with LiveNation.
Even if we look at it from the consumer ticket-buying angle, it's not OK to gouge customers, even on non-necessities.