California concertgoers allege antitrust and RICO violations against thousand-pound live entertainment and ticketing gorilla.
Six months after the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and 30 state attorneys general sued Ticketmaster LLC and its parent, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., for illegal monopolization and exclusionary conduct, more than 300 fans of superstar entertainers have sued them in Los Angeles for violating antitrust and racketeering laws, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief (Cendejas, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster LLC, et al., No. 24-ST-CV-30090, Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co.).
The plaintiffs are fans of everyone from Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Harry Styles, Ed Sheeran, and Coldplay to Billy Joel, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, Alanis Morissette, Dave Matthews, and Iron Maiden, to Olivia Rodrigo, Sabrina Carpenter, Bad Bunny, Phish, and Doja Cat.
Ticketmaster’s parent company, Live Nation, controls many of the stadiums and arenas used for performances while also maintaining the exclusive means of ticket distribution through Ticketmaster, the suit explains.
“Because other venues (not owned by Live Nation) cannot hold as many people as the stadiums and venues working through Ticketmaster, musicians and other performers have no choice but to work through Ticketmaster,” the complaint states. “And because they are forced to go through Ticketmaster, their fans must as well. This means virtually all major music concert tickets and athletic event sales in California and the United States go through Ticketmaster’s primary ticket platform.”
The plaintiffs also object to Ticketmaster’s control over the secondary market for ticket sales. “For years, scalpers have been a problem in the secondary market,” they say. While Ticketmaster claims it has taken steps to address this issue, “[I]n reality those steps have served only to help them make additional profit from the scalped tickets.”
Ticketmaster requires that the resale of tickets purchased through its platform must be resold on its secondary ticket exchange, triggering additional fees and higher costs to consumers. Venue operators are contractually required to enforce this requirement, but Ticketmaster does allow scalpers to buy up tickets ahead of individuals who actually plan to attend performances. That means consumers have to send money to resellers and hope they are not being scammed. “Because of how risky buying resold tickets outside of Ticketmaster is, Ticketmaster has left itself as the only real choice for buying tickets,” the plaintiffs argue.
The live music and comedy fans specifically cite the Taylor Swift Eras Tour, which turned into a ticketing nightmare after a planned pre-sale offer to specific individuals sold all tickets before the public was offered an opportunity to make purchases. Ticketmaster’s “exclusive” Eras Tour offer was not exclusive but simply a way to extract more money from its customers, plaintiffs maintain.
“Ticketmaster engages in other activities that lure consumers, including plaintiffs in this case, into believing that they are gaining advantageous access to tickets when in reality they get little more than an opportunity to lose more money to Ticketmaster,” the lawsuit states.
Causes of Action
The concertgoers argue the policy and spirit of California antitrust laws “are to promote the free play of competitive market forces and the lower prices to consumers that result.”
Causes of action include breach of contract, fraud, general negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unlawful tying, exclusive dealings, price discrimination, price fixing, group boycotting, and market division schemes.
As the dominant online venue for concert ticket presale, sale, and resale in the U.S., plaintiffs argue Ticketmaster’s operations violate the Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Business and Professions Code. They include a count of violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The concertgoers seek to recover thousands of dollars each plus attorney’s fees and punitive damages along with injunctive relief to stop the alleged misconduct.
U.S. v. Live Nation
Extensive discovery in the government action continues. The parties have a Dec. 31 deadline to meet and confer. If they identify disputes the court has asked for a January discovery conference (U.S., et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC, No.1:24-cv-03973. S.D.N.Y.)
A Dec. 6 letter to the court from attorneys for Live Nation and Ticketmaster demonstrates the complex nature of discovery in the digital age. Outlining the discovery work they have completed so far, attorneys for the companies say they:
Attorneys for Live Nation and Ticketmaster expect to produce more than 60,000 additional documents this month. They also note that they produced to the government 1.7 million documents between 2015 and 2019 in response to prior investigations.
