The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of 40 state enforcers have urged a federal court in New York to reject Live Nation’s interpretation of a prior ruling involving Meta Platforms, emphasizing that claims against the live entertainment company do not require proof of charging different prices to different venues.

In a Jan. 28 letter, unsealed on Wednesday, enforcers said Live Nation misread the Meta ruling to argue that establishing a market for a distinct group of customers must hinge on evidence of differential pricing. The letter said this reasoning is “wrong on the law and the facts,” noting that other evidence can demonstrate that “major concert venues” constitute a separate market from stadiums or large theaters.

“The insufficiency of evidence where plaintiffs argued that they could demonstrate differential pricing to targeted customers does not transform differential pricing into the test itself,” the letter stated. “In this case, plaintiffs’ claims do not rely on demonstrating differential pricing to [major concert venues], and as a result any lack of proof (actual or imagined) is irrelevant.”

The DOJ and the states have accused Live Nation of antitrust violations stemming from its alleged control over the live music supply chain, including ticketing, promotion, and venue management. Central to the case are exclusive promotion deals, long-term ticketing contracts, and alleged threats of retaliation against rival companies and concert venues following Live Nation’s 2010 acquisition of Ticketmaster.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian is currently reviewing a summary judgment motion from Live Nation, which argues that enforcers have not proven the company holds monopoly power over any live entertainment market or that its practices harmed competition.

Key markets under scrutiny include ticketing and promotion services for “major concert venues,” such as amphitheaters and arenas, which the case distinguishes from stadiums and large theaters. The judge asked both sides for input on market definitions, prompting Live Nation to cite a D.C. federal court’s decision in December that rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s monopolization case against Meta.

Live Nation contended that the Meta ruling, and similar cases, require evidence of price discrimination to establish market power over a specific customer group.

Enforcers countered that the Meta judge, James E. Boasberg, analyzed all submitted evidence and did not limit market definitions to differential pricing alone. “Had Judge Boasberg applied what defendants call the ‘Meta standard,’ he could have dispensed with the first two subparts of his market definition analysis,” the DOJ letter stated.

The enforcers emphasized that major concert venues are more reliant on concerts than stadiums, which primarily host sports events, making stadiums less vulnerable to Live Nation’s alleged market influence. Likewise, large theaters have different ticketing needs, hosting fewer concerts by the same artists and generally not requiring advanced services like dynamic pricing.

The letter also noted that alternative ticket providers such as SeatGeek and Tickets.com have achieved more success in stadiums and theaters than in major concert venues, while smaller clubs rely on different primary ticketing services. Additionally, major concert venues often book artists who have not yet reached the popularity required for stadium performances, creating a specialized market for concert booking services.

Judge Subramanian is also considering pausing the state law claims to expedite proceedings. State enforcers argue that trying all claims together is more efficient. A roughly five-week jury trial is scheduled to begin March 2, assuming the case survives summary judgment.

Case Reference: USA v. Live Nation et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03973, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York