Written by Dan Wall — EVP, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs

For the past three years, Live Nation has been embroiled in a Justice Department investigation and lawsuit seeking to undo the 2010 merger that merged concert promoter Live Nation with major ticket sales company Ticketmaster. When Jonathan Cantor, who served as the Justice Department’s antitrust chief under President Biden, announced the matter, he broke with normal Justice Department tradition and announced on his first day that “it’s time to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster.” He also told Americans that mergers and their associated negative effects are responsible for soaring ticket prices and fees.

Of course, none of that was true. The claim that Live Nation and Ticketmaster are responsible for high concert ticket prices and fees is, and continues to be, false. On the eve of the trial, the Justice Department argued that it had no evidence of this and did not need to prove the higher price. Let’s take a look. But the larger fiction was that this lawsuit could or should lead to a court-ordered dissolution of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. We have always said this was impossible and inappropriate, but yesterday’s summary judgment should eliminate that false promise.

Let’s start with the fact that monopoly cases rarely result in sale relief. The last time this happened was in 1980, when AT&T agreed to break up to settle a monopoly case that was in the late stages of litigation. In the 1990s, the Justice Department briefly issued an order forcing a breakup of Microsoft, but that was reversed on appeal. Instead, the usual remedy for claims of the type brought against Live Nation is an injunction prohibiting commercial activity. to the extent that it is illegal. For example, in the Google Search case, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the Department of Justice’s request to force Google to spin off Chrome and instead blocked it from entering into some, but not all, forms of exclusive default agreements. This could happen again in the Google AdTech case, where the Department of Justice, after winning the liability case, asked the court to order Google to sell its ad exchange (AdX) and open source its publisher ad server (DFP). No decision has been made yet, but at a relief hearing on November 21, 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema indicated that she would first consider whether behavioral remedies are sufficient and only turn to structural remedies if she concludes that they are not.

Governing law standards require judges to take this approach. This is the legacy of the Justice Department’s failed attempt to break up Microsoft, and was reaffirmed in the Google Search decision. These lawsuits state that “divestiture is a remedy that can only be imposed with extreme caution, in part because its long-term effectiveness is rarely certain.”[i] They point out that it has primarily been used to “quit.”[e] Exclusive formed Through mergers and acquisitions.”[ii] According to the Justice Department itself, Ticketmaster was already a ticket sales monopoly when it merged with Live Nation, so that rationale doesn’t apply here. Still, the merger was approved to, in the Department of Justice’s own words at the time, “ensure the benefits to concertgoers, artists, and the industry as a whole.”

Even before yesterday’s summary judgment decision, it was clear that the Department of Justice would not be able to meet the demands. Microsoft/Google A “causation” requirement that the defendant’s monopoly power is rooted in tort and can only be remedied by sale.[iii] And yesterday, the court narrowed the case significantly.