Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation are facing a new antitrust lawsuit from a former ticketing startup that claims it was pushed out of the market by what it describes as years of exclusionary and coercive conduct by the concert industry giants.
Fanimal Inc., which has since shut down its ticketing operations, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in California, accusing Ticketmaster of using long-term exclusivity contracts, tying arrangements and retaliation against venues to block competition and maintain dominance in the live events market.
According to the complaint, Ticketmaster did not obtain its exclusive venue agreements through fair competition. Instead, Fanimal alleges Live Nation leveraged its control over major touring artists and concert promotion services to pressure venues into using Ticketmaster as their primary ticketing provider, often through contracts that automatically renew.
“Ticketmaster did not secure those exclusive dealing agreements through fair competition,” Fanimal said in its filing. “Instead, defendants wielded their access to top touring acts and their concert promotion services to pressure venues into long-term relationships with Ticketmaster.”
Fanimal argues that Live Nation’s market power allows it to tie concert promotion services to ticketing. The lawsuit claims Live Nation controls roughly 80% of ticketing at major venues and about 75% of online primary ticketing, and that venues seeking Live Nation promotion are effectively required to use Ticketmaster.
“And because major concert venues depend on concert promotion and major artists, the concert venues relent and agree to use Ticketmaster for their primary ticketing services,” the lawsuit states.
The complaint also alleges that Live Nation and Ticketmaster punished venues that explored alternative ticketing platforms by reducing the number of shows booked at those locations or shifting concerts to less profitable dates.
“If a venue selects an alternative to Ticketmaster, it risks losing out on Live Nation’s substantial portfolio of artists and promotional resources,” Fanimal said. “And as a result, Live Nation can extract favorable promotion terms and force venues into exclusive agreements with Ticketmaster.”
Fanimal pointed to comments made by Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino at a 2019 conference as evidence of the economic pressure venues face. Rapino said at the time: “We can’t say to a Ticketmaster venue that says they want to use a different ticketing platform, ‘If you do that, we won’t put shows in your building.’ … [But] we have to put the show where we make the most economics.”
The lawsuit also references claims previously made by AEG, the second-largest ticketing provider, which has told the U.S. Department of Justice that venues it manages were warned they could lose major shows if Ticketmaster was not used. Fanimal alleges Live Nation has gone so far as to place venues on a “black list” for choosing competing ticketing services.
While Live Nation and Ticketmaster are already under scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice, which is seeking to unwind approval of their 2010 merger, Fanimal says those government actions came too late to save its business.
The company claims it was ultimately forced to dismantle its ticketing operations and sell off assets after being unable to compete in what it describes as a market distorted by anticompetitive conduct.
Fanimal did not specify the amount of damages it is seeking but asked the court to award treble damages under federal antitrust law.
Representatives for Ticketmaster and Live Nation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case is Fanimal Inc. v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
