I don't see how Live Nation wins this, how Ticketmaster is not separated from the concert promotion division.
Now there was no jury involved in the government's approval of the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. It was only a matter of law. But if you're sitting in the box and you're hearing what the Barclays and Wild guys have to say...
The Live Nation attorneys look like nitpickers. It comes down to math, Barclays lost shows and the Wild was afraid of doing so. How exactly is Live Nation going to explain this away? Especially in light of the Rapino phone call.
And unlike twice before, don't expect a consent decree. Been there, tried that, didn't work. Human nature tells us that Live Nation is going to dangle the prospect of concerts or the lack thereof to whether a building has a Ticketmaster contract or not. This is classic leverage. As for the consent decree...yeah, right. Negotiation is always about leverage and the Live Nation employee couldn't help herself in the e-mal to the Barclays guy, with the wink.
Now I've got to say that if this could have been settled on any reasonable terms, Live Nation would have done it. But obviously, the government wasn't really going to negotiate, for it thought it would win, furthermore, it knew it had the benefit of public opinion on its side.
Of course there are going to be more witnesses, the trial is going to go on for weeks. But what exactly are they going to say? They're going to go on about market share and competitors and there will be testimony as to what a great company Live Nation is and how Ticketmaster is a superior product, but this trial is about tying...tickets for concerts. And from the get-go, we see evidence of that.
Of course Live Nation doesn't believe that. But all their arguments are dispassionate. Who cares if the Barclays guy did not have completely clean hands in his relationship with SeatGeek. The bottom line is he made a deal with SeatGeek and Barclays got fewer concerts. Forget the hogwash about their being a new UBS building on Long Island. Do you really think the jury is going to believe that argument?
And SeatGeek said it would make up for any loss of concert revenue for what is now called the Grand Casino building in Minnesota, offering retaliation insurance, but buildings are more than revenue, they are vibrant operations that glean benefits by hosting events, especially concerts.
So Live Nation couldn't settle on reasonable terms. So its lawyers said to take it to trial. I hope those lawyers didn't blow smoke, talking about the law as opposed to emotions and the jury. Live Nation rolled the dice.
And when they lose... Like I said, the government ain't gonna offer no consent decree, it's going to insist upon breakup.
Of course the trial will last weeks, and there will be additional testimony...but how are you going to undercut these examples, and more that come down the pike?
You never know until the jury makes a decision. But right now, after today's testimony, I'd say Live Nation is f*cked.
Today's testimony:
"New York Times": https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/04/arts/music/live-nation-trial-barclays-center.html
"The Verge": https://apple.news/A8uOddvKqSzeq9G3H0gUoTQ
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
