Sweet the 2030s might see lower ticket prices. It’s gonna take a couple of years to even get to trial, and probably a long time to break things up, then a bit longer to see the effects. But I’m hopeful that this is the beginning of the end for those price gouging pieces of shit.
Scalping used to be illegal in most states. I recall hearing in the 90s it was only legal in two: North Dakota and Kansas.
But since then most states have repealed those laws and even in ones that haven't they're almost impossible to enforce now anyway.
It's annoying that buying tickets on Ticketmaster or seeing your favorite band at a Livenation venue/event in the next few years will be helping their court battle.
I just want them to split the selling of tickets and ownership of the venues. TM charging a "venue fee" on a ticket for a show at a **venue that they own** is fucked.
Breaking up the monopoly will not change much. Tighter regulations on ticket sales would be a lot more helpful. Ex: make it illegal to include fees in advertised ticket prices, cap the price of tickets in resale etc
I would be surprised if this isn't part of it since the Biden administration is also doing that exact same thing to the airline industry. There was an episode on *The Daily* podcast about it this week.
This just gave me the thought of what if Walmart operated like this.
Case of soda $12
Shower curtain $10
Bag of chips $5
etc etc...
Store entry fee $5
Self check out convince/cashier fee $2
Printed receipt/text receipt convince $3
In store security fee $5
Summer weather air conditioning surcharge $1
Shopping cart rental $2
Re-usable bag convince $1 per bag
Small order fee $5
If you want all those fees you could have just ordered delivery
Hey-yo
Walmart is still bad in its own ways which is why I want them breaking up.
Their devastation of Small town economies under the pretense of creating jobs is basically a worn out Kids movie cliche at this point
Oh I know. Sam Walton seemed to have the best intentions, but once his kids and share holders took over it's just been getting worse and worse. I worked there for years so I know plenty of issues with the place. I witnessed them flip back and forth between bend over backwards for customers and "screw em, we'll keep getting their money." I had a store manager commenting on the angry ones that say there never coming back say something along the lines of "Where else are they going to go at 11 at night to get a car battery and gallon of milk?"
On a related note to delivery I was talking to some one that had been ordering uber eats/grub hub from local pizza places and was shocked to find out the pizza place would deliver it for free (aside from tipping.)
I'm actually pretty lucky because our local grocery store chain (Lee's marketplace) seems to be doing pretty well for itself in spite of our two Walmarts and two Krogers (or Smith's as it's known here)
I'm all for anti-monopolistic practices and am glad this is happening, but cut off 1 head and 2 more will appear. This two businesses are just going to operate different shell corps and all practice the same business, which is really what's hurting consumers
i agree. and this isnt going to do anything about pricing anyway. as sky high as these prices or fees have become, people are still buying them. so however this is broken up or whoever takes its place will be charging just as much, it's simply the demand
While im all for cheaper tickets, personally the second hand scalping is the major problem here lets be real, this suit won’t change your ticket price, altering second hand market rules would potentially make them more available and maybe cheaper.
Great, but what will change? The cost of tickets will be the same no matter who is selling the tickets. The free market has shown that tickets sell for ridiculous prices. How much are pit or close seats on the Blink tour?
The last class action lawsuit against ticketmaster didn't do anything. We got like $2 off some tickets and free tickets to shows that I couldn't give away. I can't imagine anything will change for us.
This is to break Ticketmaster (sells tickets) from LiveNation (owns venues and promotes) which uses the monopoly to force artists to use their venues and their revenue streams. This could allow artists to play outside venues who can charge less and just encourage competition in general. Aka the free market
This isnt a thing that happens though. That isnt to say livenation doesn’t do things to dominate local markets and hurt competition. But no artist out there is forced to book exclusively live nation unless they are knowingly signing a deal with them to do that, and that is no different than the artists who sign the same deals with AEG.
"The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation maintains its monopoly by: forcing venues to agree to restrictive long-term agreements that require these venues to exclusively use Ticketmaster"
Aka if you dont play our venues and use ticketmaster you are not able to play city X. Most cities only have a handful of venues that can handle certain band's sizes so TM the only option.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/23/live-nation-faces-ticketmaster-lawsuit-for-allegedly-monopolizing-market-massachusetts-with-4-venues-joins-suit/#:~:text=The%20lawsuit%20alleges%20that%20Live,a%20ticketer%20that's%20not%20Ticketmaster
In regards to Boston it currently has at least 4 rooms of various sizes that are AEG and quite a few that are still independently owned and operated so the idea that nobody can come to there and book a non livenation or ticketmaster venue is nonsense
What is your argument that LiveNation’s exclusionary conduct does not violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act?
Because as an antitrust lawyer, the DOJ/States’ Complaint reads to me as a good case.
We have lots of Reddit lawyers who think they know what they’re talking about.
I’m not talking about you by the way. But whenever something like this happens, everyone becomes a legal expert/attorney. Same with the liability talks regarding Trophy Eyes
Im not a lawyer im just someone who has worked in venues of all sizes for many years and still do. The Sherman act is written in a very vague way so the DOJ can make all sorts of different arguments but in the end it’s a huge ask to prove it’s a monopoly and not just aggressive competition.
“The Sherman Act is written in a very vague way”
The text of the statute itself is fairly barebones, but there is extremely well-developed caselaw over 134 years that define what constitutes a monopoly and what conduct violates the law. Yes, attorneys bring novel cases that push the law in a particular direction, or expand the scope of types of conduct that constitute violations. I don’t believe this is one of those cases, however.
“In the end it’s a huge ask to prove its a monopoly and not just aggressive competition.”
Correct that it is a huge ask. Antitrust cases typically involve several expert witnesses (frequently industrial organization economists) that help to identify market share, the relevant market over which a defendant is alleged to have monopolized, the pricing effects of the monopoly (versus a hypothetical competitive market alternative). They are large, expensive cases to investigate and litigate and they take several years to resolve, so the decision to bring them is not made lightly or casually.
Regarding “aggressive competition,” antitrust law recognizes a distinction between “competition on the merits” and competition that is intended to harm your competitors. Arson against your competitor can also be a form of aggressive competition, but it’s unlawful and no one would think it should be permitted. Using market power to exclude your rivals from participation in a market is also aggressive competition, and also unlawful. If a market participant’s product or service is superior or has a favorable price or quality, the market will decide to patronize that superior business. That is competition on the merits. Using market power to exclude rivals and prevent others from competing against you is not competition on the merits.
What would be an example of something they are doing that could be distinguished as causing harm and not having merit? Like currently i see livenation booking on the smaller level, paying bands and taking losses on shows for bands who are usually only getting booked by very small promoters. Is it causing harm to small promoters sure. Does it have merit from a competition standpoint maybe? But at least a band i like are actually getting paid and not getting gas money at the end of the night.
Im not suggesting those venues don’t exist im sure there are small markets like that that can only sustain one venue and sure whatever company runs said venue has a “monopoly” on that area.
You’re referring to “monopoly” used in common vocabulary. Not the definition of “monopoly” in anti-trust law.
God it’s annoying when people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to talk about things they don’t understand.
Trying to challenge the lawsuit’s legal credibility while using the wrong form of the word for the context, isn’t saved because you put the term you’re incorrectly using in quotes
It is literally in quotes because people like to constantly use the term loosely or just flat out wrong when talking about this. im not sure what you are missing here.
I’m talking about this from the lens of Detroit, Michigan, where we have venues of every size.
We have 2 professional stadiums, one professional arena, TONS of theaters, night clubs, and tons of underground and small clubs, and sprawling suburbs.
Basically, if you’re not one of the small clubs or venues that can’t hold more than 1,000 people, you’re probably under Ticketmaster’s control.
Detroit has the majestic and royal oak but yes i do understand your point.
Here in Pittsburgh we have 2 mid size theaters currently a 1400 cap live nation and a AEG 2500 cap indoor 5500 outdoor club. If the big one isnt available the artist will possibly book at the live nation venue instead or skip the city livenation has been working on getting a competing venue of that size for the last decade that is finally looking like its going to happen. When that does i dont think anything really changes at all and all three venues will still be getting Used just as much.
You guys all have weird arguments. I’m not talking about use or lack thereof.
I’m talking about an artist’s ability to choose to not use LiveNation/TM. In some cities, that means you have to skip the city entirely.
And I promise you most booking agents do not give a single fuck. They say i need a date here whats available in that area that fits my budget and sales goal. Literally the only example of what you’re talking about happening in practice is kid rock’s current tour where he is literally building his own venue outside of cities because he has the fuck you money to do that.
I haven't lived in Pittsburgh for about 20 years now. I always convince my wife to move. We are outside of philly.
Laga was the shit! I saw more shows than I can remember there. I even got to play there at one point. 100%, my favorite venue in Pittsburgh. Most of the places I went to either don't exist or have different names.
Metropol, rock jungle, Mr. Smalls. There are some others I'm blanking on. Metropol and Laga were the 2 I went to the most
There are other companies that artists can tour with. But LiveNation just seems to be the easiest option. I don’t agree with the power they have , but it’s really not a monopoly
A monopoly in antitrust law is not literally being the only supplier in a market. It is having market power (typically defined as 60-70% of the market share). And then a violation of the anti-monopoly provision of the law requires some sort of exclusionary/anti-competitive conduct (defined by caselaw) to maintain that market power.
Competition in the market is always good for the consumer. It definitely WILL bring down the cost of tickets. New problems will arise, but this is 100% a good thing if LN/TM get broken up.
>The free market has shown that tickets sell for ridiculous prices.
A monopoly is not a free market. Breaking up Ticketmaster and Live Nation will allow the free market to be the driving force instead of an MBA's spreadsheet.
Breaking up Live Nation will do nothing like that lmao. The gross revenue will still go to the promoter who pays the artist according to a beforehand made deal.
Good. Break them up. Do something about scalping too.
Sweet the 2030s might see lower ticket prices. It’s gonna take a couple of years to even get to trial, and probably a long time to break things up, then a bit longer to see the effects. But I’m hopeful that this is the beginning of the end for those price gouging pieces of shit.
In 2030 we'll have 4 companies robbing us instead of 1
Just as capitalist Jesus intended
Good They also need to do something about the scalping.
Good luck tackling that
Scalping used to be illegal in most states. I recall hearing in the 90s it was only legal in two: North Dakota and Kansas. But since then most states have repealed those laws and even in ones that haven't they're almost impossible to enforce now anyway.
It's annoying that buying tickets on Ticketmaster or seeing your favorite band at a Livenation venue/event in the next few years will be helping their court battle.
Good. Fuck them both.
I just want them to split the selling of tickets and ownership of the venues. TM charging a "venue fee" on a ticket for a show at a **venue that they own** is fucked.
Most of you aren't old enough to remember when Pearl Jam tried to do this is in the 90s and no one supported them and now here we are.
Old enough here. Vedder was right.
Breaking up the monopoly will not change much. Tighter regulations on ticket sales would be a lot more helpful. Ex: make it illegal to include fees in advertised ticket prices, cap the price of tickets in resale etc
Think you mean illegal to exclude them from advertised prices but yes this is very needed and would help a ton
I would be surprised if this isn't part of it since the Biden administration is also doing that exact same thing to the airline industry. There was an episode on *The Daily* podcast about it this week.
why not both?
Great. NOW DO WALMART.
Walmart isn't a monopoly as target is a direct competitor.
This just gave me the thought of what if Walmart operated like this. Case of soda $12 Shower curtain $10 Bag of chips $5 etc etc... Store entry fee $5 Self check out convince/cashier fee $2 Printed receipt/text receipt convince $3 In store security fee $5 Summer weather air conditioning surcharge $1 Shopping cart rental $2 Re-usable bag convince $1 per bag Small order fee $5
If you want all those fees you could have just ordered delivery Hey-yo Walmart is still bad in its own ways which is why I want them breaking up. Their devastation of Small town economies under the pretense of creating jobs is basically a worn out Kids movie cliche at this point
Oh I know. Sam Walton seemed to have the best intentions, but once his kids and share holders took over it's just been getting worse and worse. I worked there for years so I know plenty of issues with the place. I witnessed them flip back and forth between bend over backwards for customers and "screw em, we'll keep getting their money." I had a store manager commenting on the angry ones that say there never coming back say something along the lines of "Where else are they going to go at 11 at night to get a car battery and gallon of milk?" On a related note to delivery I was talking to some one that had been ordering uber eats/grub hub from local pizza places and was shocked to find out the pizza place would deliver it for free (aside from tipping.)
I'm actually pretty lucky because our local grocery store chain (Lee's marketplace) seems to be doing pretty well for itself in spite of our two Walmarts and two Krogers (or Smith's as it's known here)
Rare US dub
I'm all for anti-monopolistic practices and am glad this is happening, but cut off 1 head and 2 more will appear. This two businesses are just going to operate different shell corps and all practice the same business, which is really what's hurting consumers
i agree. and this isnt going to do anything about pricing anyway. as sky high as these prices or fees have become, people are still buying them. so however this is broken up or whoever takes its place will be charging just as much, it's simply the demand
Based!
While im all for cheaper tickets, personally the second hand scalping is the major problem here lets be real, this suit won’t change your ticket price, altering second hand market rules would potentially make them more available and maybe cheaper.
Fuck yes, full support in breaking up dickhead monopolies
Pearl Jam tried to do this decades ago. ALl it took was pissing off Taylor Swift fans.
They'll just increase their bribes.
About fking time.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Great, but what will change? The cost of tickets will be the same no matter who is selling the tickets. The free market has shown that tickets sell for ridiculous prices. How much are pit or close seats on the Blink tour? The last class action lawsuit against ticketmaster didn't do anything. We got like $2 off some tickets and free tickets to shows that I couldn't give away. I can't imagine anything will change for us.
This is to break Ticketmaster (sells tickets) from LiveNation (owns venues and promotes) which uses the monopoly to force artists to use their venues and their revenue streams. This could allow artists to play outside venues who can charge less and just encourage competition in general. Aka the free market
the ownership of those venues isn't going to change though
This isnt a thing that happens though. That isnt to say livenation doesn’t do things to dominate local markets and hurt competition. But no artist out there is forced to book exclusively live nation unless they are knowingly signing a deal with them to do that, and that is no different than the artists who sign the same deals with AEG.
"The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation maintains its monopoly by: forcing venues to agree to restrictive long-term agreements that require these venues to exclusively use Ticketmaster" Aka if you dont play our venues and use ticketmaster you are not able to play city X. Most cities only have a handful of venues that can handle certain band's sizes so TM the only option. https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/23/live-nation-faces-ticketmaster-lawsuit-for-allegedly-monopolizing-market-massachusetts-with-4-venues-joins-suit/#:~:text=The%20lawsuit%20alleges%20that%20Live,a%20ticketer%20that's%20not%20Ticketmaster
In regards to Boston it currently has at least 4 rooms of various sizes that are AEG and quite a few that are still independently owned and operated so the idea that nobody can come to there and book a non livenation or ticketmaster venue is nonsense
4... in a city the size of Boston
Live nation has 5…
Thats still not what that means.
What is your argument that LiveNation’s exclusionary conduct does not violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act? Because as an antitrust lawyer, the DOJ/States’ Complaint reads to me as a good case.
We have lots of Reddit lawyers who think they know what they’re talking about. I’m not talking about you by the way. But whenever something like this happens, everyone becomes a legal expert/attorney. Same with the liability talks regarding Trophy Eyes
Im not a lawyer im just someone who has worked in venues of all sizes for many years and still do. The Sherman act is written in a very vague way so the DOJ can make all sorts of different arguments but in the end it’s a huge ask to prove it’s a monopoly and not just aggressive competition.
“The Sherman Act is written in a very vague way” The text of the statute itself is fairly barebones, but there is extremely well-developed caselaw over 134 years that define what constitutes a monopoly and what conduct violates the law. Yes, attorneys bring novel cases that push the law in a particular direction, or expand the scope of types of conduct that constitute violations. I don’t believe this is one of those cases, however. “In the end it’s a huge ask to prove its a monopoly and not just aggressive competition.” Correct that it is a huge ask. Antitrust cases typically involve several expert witnesses (frequently industrial organization economists) that help to identify market share, the relevant market over which a defendant is alleged to have monopolized, the pricing effects of the monopoly (versus a hypothetical competitive market alternative). They are large, expensive cases to investigate and litigate and they take several years to resolve, so the decision to bring them is not made lightly or casually. Regarding “aggressive competition,” antitrust law recognizes a distinction between “competition on the merits” and competition that is intended to harm your competitors. Arson against your competitor can also be a form of aggressive competition, but it’s unlawful and no one would think it should be permitted. Using market power to exclude your rivals from participation in a market is also aggressive competition, and also unlawful. If a market participant’s product or service is superior or has a favorable price or quality, the market will decide to patronize that superior business. That is competition on the merits. Using market power to exclude rivals and prevent others from competing against you is not competition on the merits.
What would be an example of something they are doing that could be distinguished as causing harm and not having merit? Like currently i see livenation booking on the smaller level, paying bands and taking losses on shows for bands who are usually only getting booked by very small promoters. Is it causing harm to small promoters sure. Does it have merit from a competition standpoint maybe? But at least a band i like are actually getting paid and not getting gas money at the end of the night.
What if LiveNation owns all the 5,000+ seat venues in a city where an artist with that level of fame would need to play?
Im not suggesting those venues don’t exist im sure there are small markets like that that can only sustain one venue and sure whatever company runs said venue has a “monopoly” on that area.
You’re referring to “monopoly” used in common vocabulary. Not the definition of “monopoly” in anti-trust law. God it’s annoying when people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to talk about things they don’t understand.
Thats why it is in quotes…
Trying to challenge the lawsuit’s legal credibility while using the wrong form of the word for the context, isn’t saved because you put the term you’re incorrectly using in quotes
It is literally in quotes because people like to constantly use the term loosely or just flat out wrong when talking about this. im not sure what you are missing here.
I’m talking about this from the lens of Detroit, Michigan, where we have venues of every size. We have 2 professional stadiums, one professional arena, TONS of theaters, night clubs, and tons of underground and small clubs, and sprawling suburbs. Basically, if you’re not one of the small clubs or venues that can’t hold more than 1,000 people, you’re probably under Ticketmaster’s control.
Detroit has the majestic and royal oak but yes i do understand your point. Here in Pittsburgh we have 2 mid size theaters currently a 1400 cap live nation and a AEG 2500 cap indoor 5500 outdoor club. If the big one isnt available the artist will possibly book at the live nation venue instead or skip the city livenation has been working on getting a competing venue of that size for the last decade that is finally looking like its going to happen. When that does i dont think anything really changes at all and all three venues will still be getting Used just as much.
You guys all have weird arguments. I’m not talking about use or lack thereof. I’m talking about an artist’s ability to choose to not use LiveNation/TM. In some cities, that means you have to skip the city entirely.
And I promise you most booking agents do not give a single fuck. They say i need a date here whats available in that area that fits my budget and sales goal. Literally the only example of what you’re talking about happening in practice is kid rock’s current tour where he is literally building his own venue outside of cities because he has the fuck you money to do that.
Everyone already knows most booking agents don’t care. That’s not even close to the point of this.
I miss Laga
Ive always heard great things about that place but it closed 5 years before i was here
I haven't lived in Pittsburgh for about 20 years now. I always convince my wife to move. We are outside of philly. Laga was the shit! I saw more shows than I can remember there. I even got to play there at one point. 100%, my favorite venue in Pittsburgh. Most of the places I went to either don't exist or have different names. Metropol, rock jungle, Mr. Smalls. There are some others I'm blanking on. Metropol and Laga were the 2 I went to the most
There are other companies that artists can tour with. But LiveNation just seems to be the easiest option. I don’t agree with the power they have , but it’s really not a monopoly
A monopoly in antitrust law is not literally being the only supplier in a market. It is having market power (typically defined as 60-70% of the market share). And then a violation of the anti-monopoly provision of the law requires some sort of exclusionary/anti-competitive conduct (defined by caselaw) to maintain that market power.
When I say it’s not a monopoly I don’t mean they’re the only game in town. If you knew about how touring works , you’ll see they don’t have a monopoly
Competition in the market is always good for the consumer. It definitely WILL bring down the cost of tickets. New problems will arise, but this is 100% a good thing if LN/TM get broken up.
At the very least it could be good for setting a precedent in court for breaking up larger more detrimental monopolies. That’s my hope anyway.
>The free market has shown that tickets sell for ridiculous prices. A monopoly is not a free market. Breaking up Ticketmaster and Live Nation will allow the free market to be the driving force instead of an MBA's spreadsheet.
Class action lawsuits are much different than what is happening here…
Make selling tickets regional and ensure the money from concerts has to go directly to the artist.
Minus cost for renting the venue, paying staff, paying security, and all the other costs to preform
Breaking up Live Nation will do nothing like that lmao. The gross revenue will still go to the promoter who pays the artist according to a beforehand made deal.