Live Nation Asks Judge to Overturn Monopoly Verdict for Lack of Evidence: ‘Legally Indefensible’

Live Nation is asking a federal judge to overturn the blockbuster verdict that the music giant is an illegal monopoly, arguing there was so little evidence during the trial that the jury’s decision “cannot stand.”

In a pair of motions filed in Manhattan federal court Thursday (May 21), Live Nation is urging the judge to undo the April verdict, in which jurors sided decisively with a coalition of state attorneys general who called the concert company a “monopolistic bully.”

Live Nation wants the judge to either reverse the verdict entirely or grant the company a new trial. It says the states lacked sufficient evidence to win the case and instead had relied on “cherrypicked” data and claims designed to “inflame and distract” the jury.

“In the end, the jury verdict is legally indefensible,” the company’s lawyers write in the filing, obtained and first reported by Billboard. “At the very least, a new trial is needed.”

Thursday’s filings are the procedural first step in Live Nation’s efforts to overturn the verdict. If denied — such post-trial motions face long odds in any lawsuit — the company will then take the case to a federal appeals court, and then to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Those efforts will have new stakes after the states formally asked earlier on Thursday that the judge must punish Live Nation by forcing it to sell Ticketmaster — a drastic change that would have major implications for the live music industry. Live Nation responded that a breakup is not legally available and the states’ request for one is “performative and political.”

The Department of Justice and dozens of states sued Live Nation in 2024, claiming the company (which acquired Ticketmaster in 2010) had grown into a monopoly that dominates live music: “It is time to break it up,” said then-attorney general Merrick Garland.

A week after the case went to trial in March, the DOJ agreed to a surprise settlement. But dozens of states pushed ahead, with the goal of splitting Ticketmaster from Live Nation. And on April 15, they won a total victory: A verdict that Live Nation had violated federal antitrust laws by illegally monopolizing the market for ticketing services and other elements of the live music ecosystem.

In Thursday’s filings, Live Nation argues that such a verdict was “contrary to the clear weight of the evidence” presented to jurors during the trial. Rather than concrete proof and valid legal claims, the company says the states’ case was mostly built on scaring jurors with “legally irrelevant” stories about harm the company had allegedly inflicted on music fans.

“Hours of trial time were spent on prices for lawn chairs and parking. Phrases like ‘robbing them blind baby’ and ‘velvet hammer’ were plaintiffs’ mantras,” the company’s lawyers write, referring to specific moments from the trial, including unflattering internal messages in which Live Nation execs bragged about raising prices.

“None of this evidence should have come in, and its devastating impact became more apparent as the trial progressed,” Live Nation’s lawyers write. “Without it, there is little chance the jury would have returned the same verdict.”