Thirty-three U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed a motion on Thursday asking the U.S. District Court of Southern New York to impose remedies that would fundamentally restructure the live entertainment industry. At the center of their demands is a forced breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
The request puts U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian in Manhattan center stage in deciding the fate of the country's largest concert promoter and ticketing service, after the states won a landmark verdict finding that the company illegally dominates the market.
The Jury Verdict
On April 15, 2026, a federal jury found Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster liable on every antitrust count submitted, including monopolization of primary ticketing markets and illegal tying of amphitheater access to promotion services.
The verdict came despite a mid-trial settlement between Live Nation and the U.S. Department of Justice. The states deemed that deal insufficient and not in the public interest, and pushed ahead with the trial.
What The States Are Asking For
The remedies proposal filed Thursday is sweeping in scope.
At its core, states are demanding the divestiture of Ticketmaster, which Live Nation acquired in 2010, along with restrictions on the company ever reentering the primary ticketing market. According to the court filing, plaintiffs are evaluating "the scope of assets, contracts, personnel, and systems that would be necessary for a standalone Ticketmaster to effectively compete in the market for primary ticketing services."
Beyond the Ticketmaster split, other fixes contemplated by the states include the sale of a "sufficient number" of Live Nation-owned concert amphitheaters and "limitations or prohibitions" on the company buying new outdoor venues in the future. The states are also seeking prohibitions on Live Nation conditioning a venue's access to its content based on the venue's choice of ticketing platform, and an end to exclusive ticketing contracts at major concert venues.
On the financial side, the proposal includes damages for overcharges paid by concert-goers in plaintiff states, disgorgement of profits earned during the period of unlawful monopoly maintenance, and civil penalties under applicable state laws.
The filing also calls for an independent monitor with broad investigatory powers and real-time access to Live Nation's business records, communications, and negotiations with venues and artists.
The filing Thursday is a preliminary outline of the remedy the states plan to seek and could later change. The judge is not expected to hear arguments over the proposed breakup for several months, and the case is expected to take at least a year before any formal orders by the court.
Live Nation Pushes Back
The company wasted no time rejecting the states' framing. "The jury verdict in this case cannot support a request for divesting Ticketmaster from Live Nation," said Dan Wall, the company's head of corporate and regulatory affairs. "The States' request for a breakup is performative and political."
Live Nation is also seeking to have the verdict thrown out on several grounds, and an appeal could extend the litigation for years.
Independent Venues: A "Strong Start," But Not Enough
The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) applauded the filing while urging the states to go further.
Executive Director Stephen Parker praised the proposed remedies - including the Ticketmaster divestiture, the prohibition on Live Nation involvement in ticketing, amphitheater sell-offs, and an end to exclusive booking arrangements — calling them "a strong start."
But Parker said the proposal does not address what NIVA sees as the root of Live Nation's leverage: its control over artists and tours.
"Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and controls more than 60% of major concert promotions; the case definitively established they use this leverage to assert their dominance," Parker said. "Breaking up Live Nation while leaving them with their leverage will not fix the broken live entertainment sector their merger created."
NIVA is calling for limits on Live Nation's ability to manage artists and promote tours as a necessary supplement to the structural remedies on the table.
Lawmakers Support The States
Earlier in the week, Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Richard Blumenthal hosted a Capitol Hill forum criticizing the DOJ's settlement as a "pathetic slap on the wrist" and strongly backed the states' push for an outright structural breakup of the conglomerate.
Raskin said that since Live Nation's structure "virtually guarantees anti-competitive conduct, then structural remedies must obviously be on the table, including divestiture, including breakup." He added, "The remedy must address the scope and the magnitude of the violation."
What Happens Next
The plaintiff states and Live Nation are already fighting over the sequencing of the remedies phase.
The states want fact discovery on remedies to run concurrently with the 60-day Tunney Act public comment period for the DOJ settlement, and want Judge Subramanian to hold off on approving the federal deal until after a full remedies hearing.
Live Nation, meanwhile, has argued for a slower timeline that would allow the DOJ settlement to be finalized first — a posture that could delay any breakup proceedings by nearly a year.
