Following the jury verdict finding Live Nation and Ticketmaster guilty of operating an illegal monopoly, the live entertainment giant is pushing are pushing back. In two aggressive memorandums filed on July 2, 2026, Live Nation called on the court to throw out the jury's verdict entirely; or failing that, to grant a brand new trial.
Here is a breakdown of Live Nation’s two-pronged legal defense.
1. The Push to Overturn the Verdict: "No Proof of Harm"
In their Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Live Nation argues that the plaintiffs (the U.S. government and various states) failed to meet the technical requirements of the Sherman Antitrust Act. They claim the prosecution won on "made-for-juries emotional arguments" rather than actual economic proof.
Their key arguments for throwing out the verdict include:
- Lack of Economic Harm: Live Nation asserts the government failed to prove that the company's conduct actually resulted in higher prices, lower quality, or reduced output for artists and venues.
- Artists Make More Money: The defense highlights evidence acknowledging that artists actually made 18% more money playing at Live Nation’s large amphitheaters than at arenas.
- Voluntary Venue Contracts: Live Nation claims there is zero evidence that any venue was forced into an exclusive primary ticketing contract they did not want; rather, venues voluntarily chose these exclusive agreements.
- Flawed Damages Calculations: The companies argue that the plaintiff's expert witness on damages, Dr. Abrantes-Metz, provided an overcharge analysis that was completely unreliable and inadmissible.
2. The Push for a New Trial: "Prejudiced Evidence"
If the judge refuses to overturn the verdict outright, Live Nation has formally requested a new trial, arguing the original verdict was "against the weight of the evidence". They claim the jury was severely prejudiced by the improper admission of specific evidence and flawed jury instructions.
Key arguments for a new trial include:
- Improper Focus on Fan Ticket Fees: Live Nation argues the jury was improperly swayed by "out-of-market" evidence about the high ticket fees paid by fans, including comparisons to lower fees in Europe. Legally, they argue the trial should have only focused on the prices charged to the actual customers in the defined market: venues and artists.
- Stale and Hearsay Evidence: The defense claims the government propped up its allegations of "threats and retaliation" by heavily relying on "stale" evidence from outside the statute of limitations, as well as hearsay regarding rumors of venue "concerns".
- Flawed Jury Instructions: Live Nation asserts the court's instructions to the jury misstated antitrust law regarding market definition, anticompetitive effects, and exclusive dealing.
Hypebot's Bottom Line
Now that Live Nation has filed motions to dismiss the jury's monopoly verdict against it or permit a retrial, the ball is now in Federal Judge Arun Subramanian court.
The judge will likely issue a ruling, or at least provide significant guidance, on or before the upcoming major status conference scheduled for July 30, 2026.
If the judge denies Live Nation's requests and upholds the jury's verdict, the lawsuit will officially move into the "remedies phase" to determine penalties, which is currently slated for a separate bench trial expected to begin no earlier than February 2027.
