Case tracker
Live Nation–Ticketmaster Antitrust Case Tracker
Timeline, verdict, settlement, remedies and divestiture proposals in one federal antitrust action against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster, maintained from primary court filings and official state releases.
1:24-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y.)Last updated 2026-08-2016 recorded events
What has actually happened
On 23 May 2024 the United States and a coalition of state attorneys general sued Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company unlawfully maintained monopolies in ticketing at major concert venues and in large amphitheatres, and that it tied artists' access to its amphitheatres to the use of its promotion services. This is one action, not two.
Trial opened on 2 March 2026. One week later the Department of Justice filed a notice of settlement, and the case forked procedurally: the United States moved toward a negotiated final judgment, filed on 12 June 2026 and now in Tunney Act review, while a coalition of state attorneys general declined the settlement and continued to verdict.
On 15 April 2026 the jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable, holding that Ticketmaster unlawfully maintains a monopoly in ticketing at major concert venues, that Live Nation holds a monopoly in large amphitheatres, and that Live Nation unlawfully requires artists using those amphitheatres to use its promotion services. Remedies were reserved for a separate proceeding before the judge. On 21 May 2026 the plaintiff states filed an initial remedies proposal asking the court to order divestiture of Ticketmaster and divestiture of Live Nation-owned large amphitheatres, together with monetary relief.
Nothing structural has been ordered. The DOJ's proposed final judgment has not been entered, and the states' remedies are proposals filed at the court's direction, subject to discovery and to the court's decision. No breakup has been ordered and the case is not closed.
Current status
State-plaintiff track
Filed; remedies discovery proposed
Plaintiff states file an initial remedies proposal seeking divestiture
Latest verified development
Competitive impact statement filed
Newest recorded event 2026-06-29. Sources last checked 2026-08-20.
This panel is generated from the structured case record below. It states filings, jury findings and proposals; it does not state outcomes that no court has ordered.
Timeline of the action
9 shared events before the fork, 3 on the DOJ track and 4 on the continuing state-plaintiff track. Each event links to the primary document or official release it was read from and carries the date Live Index last checked it.
One action: United States and plaintiff states, 2010 to March 2026
Merger context, the 2024 complaint, pretrial rulings and the opening of trial. These events are common to both later tracks.
- ContextUnited States and plaintiff states
Ticketmaster–Live Nation merger cleared under a consent decree
The United States and plaintiff states brought a merger case against Ticketmaster Entertainment and Live Nation in the District of Columbia, No. 1:10-cv-00139, and the merger proceeded subject to a negotiated final judgment rather than being blocked.
Why it matters The conduct at issue in the 2024 action took place while the merged company was operating under that earlier decree.
Source: U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2020-01-28. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- DecreeUnited States and plaintiff states
Court enters an amended final judgment in the 2010 merger case
The court modified and extended the 2010 consent decree, clarifying the prohibition on conditioning or retaliating against venues over their choice of ticketing provider and adding compliance machinery.
Why it matters This is the behavioural decree the plaintiff states later cited when arguing that behavioural relief alone had not disciplined the company's conduct.
Source: Amended Final Judgment, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (via DOJ Antitrust Division), 2020-01-28. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- FilingUnited States and plaintiff states
United States and plaintiff states file the monopolisation complaint
The Department of Justice, joined by a coalition of state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust complaint in the Southern District of New York alleging that Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopolies across the live concert industry.
Why it matters This filing, not the 2010 decree, is the action that produced the 2026 verdict and the 2026 settlement.
Source: Complaint, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2024-05-23. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- FilingUnited States and plaintiff states
Amended complaint filed
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, the operative pleading for the remainder of the case; a redline against the original was filed on 19 August 2024.
Why it matters The amended complaint defines the claims the jury was later asked to decide.
Source: Amended Complaint, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2024-08-30. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- FilingUnited States and plaintiff states
Motion to transfer venue denied
The court denied the defendants' motion to move the case out of the Southern District of New York.
Why it matters The case stayed before the court that ultimately tried it.
Source: Opinion Denying Motion to Transfer, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (via DOJ Antitrust Division), 2024-10-03. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- FilingUnited States and plaintiff states
Motion to dismiss denied
The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the monopolisation and tying claims to proceed to discovery and trial.
Why it matters Survival of a motion to dismiss establishes only that the claims were adequately pleaded, not that they were proved.
Source: Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (via DOJ Antitrust Division), 2025-03-14. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- FilingUnited States and plaintiff states
Defendants answer the amended complaint
Live Nation and Ticketmaster filed their answer, denying the allegations of unlawful monopoly maintenance and tying.
Why it matters The answer joins issue and sets the disputed facts for trial.
Source: Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2025-03-28. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- FilingUnited States and plaintiff states
Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part
The court resolved the defendants' summary-judgment motion and the parties' motions to exclude expert testimony in part for each side, leaving core liability questions for the jury.
Why it matters The ruling fixed which claims and which expert evidence reached the jury two weeks before trial.
Source: Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (via DOJ Antitrust Division), 2026-02-18. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- TrialUnited States and plaintiff states
Trial begins in the Southern District of New York
Trial opened on 2 March 2026 with the United States and the plaintiff states still litigating together.
Why it matters Everything before this date is common to both later tracks; the divergence happens one week into trial.
Source: Attorney General Bonta Asks Court to Break Up Live Nation/Ticketmaster, California Attorney General, 2026-05-21. Last verified 2026-08-20.
Procedural fork · 2026-03-09
One week into trial the United States filed a notice of settlement and the state attorneys general continued to verdict. From this date the same case proceeds on two tracks with different relief. They are not separate lawsuits.
DOJ track
Settlement, proposed final judgment and Tunney Act review. Nothing here is in force until the court enters the judgment.
- SettlementDOJ track
Department of Justice files a notice of settlement
One week into trial the United States filed a notice of settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster, opening the statutory path toward a negotiated final judgment.
Why it matters A notice of settlement commits the United States to a proposed judgment; it does not itself impose any obligation on the defendants.
Status Filed
Source: Notice of Settlement, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2026-03-09. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- SettlementDOJ track
Proposed final judgment and stipulation filed
The United States filed a proposed final judgment, a stipulation and order, and an explanation of procedures under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. The proposed judgment runs eight years from entry, requires Ticketmaster to offer major concert venues fully or partially non-exclusive primary ticketing contracts, caps fully exclusive contracts at four years, bars conditioning and retaliation over a venue's choice of ticketing provider, provides for an independent monitor, and requires notice to thirteen listed divestiture venues that booking or promotion contracts be terminated or brought into compliance.
Why it matters The proposed judgment is a settlement filed for approval, not an order: it binds no one until the court enters it.
Status Filed, awaiting Tunney Act review
Source: Proposed Final Judgment, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2026-06-12. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- SettlementDOJ track
Competitive impact statement filed
The United States filed the competitive impact statement required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, setting out the practices alleged and how the proposed judgment is said to address them, and starting the public-comment stage of Tunney Act review.
Why it matters This is the latest verified filing on the DOJ track; entry of the proposed judgment remains with the court.
Status Filed, public-comment stage
Source: Competitive Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 2026-06-29. Last verified 2026-08-20.
Continuing state-plaintiff track
Trial to verdict, then a separate remedies proceeding before the judge. Liability has been found; relief has not been ordered.
- TrialState-plaintiff track
State plaintiffs reject the settlement and continue the trial
The state attorneys general declined to join the settlement announced by the Department of Justice and continued litigating the case to verdict.
Why it matters This is the procedural fork: from here the same action proceeds on two tracks with different relief.
Source: Attorney General Bonta Asks Court to Break Up Live Nation/Ticketmaster, California Attorney General, 2026-05-21. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- VerdictState-plaintiff track
Jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff states
After a five-week trial the jury found that Ticketmaster unlawfully maintains a monopoly in ticketing services at major concert venues, that Live Nation has a monopoly in large amphitheatres used by artists, and that Live Nation unlawfully requires artists using its amphitheatres to also use its promotion services. The jury also found that fans were overcharged. New York's release states an overcharge of $1.72 per ticket for New Yorkers.
Why it matters Liability was decided by a jury; the scope of relief was expressly reserved for a separate remedies proceeding before the judge.
Status Liability found; remedies reserved
Source: Attorney General James and Coalition of States Win Trial Against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, New York Attorney General, 2026-04-15. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- RemediesState-plaintiff track
Court directs the plaintiff states to submit a remedies framework
At a hearing on 7 May 2026 and by further order, the court directed the plaintiff states to file an initial set of proposed remedies together with the fact discovery they anticipate seeking.
Why it matters The remedies phase is a separate bench proceeding, so the relief the states sought was filed rather than awarded.
Source: Plaintiff States' letter and initial proposed remedies (ECF No. 1497), New York Attorney General (filed S.D.N.Y.), 2026-05-21. Last verified 2026-08-20.
- RemediesState-plaintiff track
Plaintiff states file an initial remedies proposal seeking divestiture
A coalition of 34 attorneys general filed an initial set of proposed remedies asking the court to order Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster and to divest a sufficient number of Live Nation-owned large amphitheatres, along with limits on re-entry and future exclusive ticketing contracts, a ban on conditioning venue access to content on ticketing choice, a new independent monitor, and monetary relief in the form of damages, civil penalties, disgorgement and restitution.
Why it matters These are remedies sought on an initial and expressly reservable basis, not remedies ordered; the states also state that they may seek different or additional relief as discovery proceeds.
Status Filed; remedies discovery proposed
Source: Plaintiff States' Initial Proposed Remedies (ECF No. 1497-1), New York Attorney General (filed S.D.N.Y.), 2026-05-21. Last verified 2026-08-20.
What each side is asking for
The DOJ's proposed final judgment and the plaintiff states' initial remedies proposal address the same conduct with different instruments. Only categories supported by those two documents appear here.
| Remedy category | DOJ proposed final judgment | State-plaintiff remedies proposal | What the difference does |
|---|---|---|---|
| Divestiture of TicketmasterStructuralSources a,b | Not required. The judgment contemplates a sale only conditionally: if Live Nation sells the Ticketmaster business, certain sections are deemed expired. | Sought. An order requiring Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster with the assets, contracts, personnel and systems needed for it to compete standalone. | One leaves ownership intact and regulates conduct; the other separates the ticketing business from the promoter and venue business. |
| Amphitheatre divestitureStructuralSources c,b | Contract-level only. Thirteen named venues must be given notice that booking or promotion contracts will be terminated or modified, and Live Nation may not hold ownership or control over them. | Sought as asset divestiture: an order requiring Live Nation to divest a sufficient number of Live Nation-owned large amphitheatres, plus cancellation of enough leases and exclusive booking arrangements to end national and local amphitheatre monopolies. | The judgment releases a fixed list of venues from Live Nation control; the states' proposal would change who owns amphitheatres, and the number is left to the court. |
| Primary ticketing exclusivityBehaviouralSources a,b | Ticketmaster must offer major concert venues a fully or partially non-exclusive contract, may not use pricing structures that reproduce exclusivity, and may not write a fully exclusive contract longer than four years. | Sought: prohibition on enforcing existing exclusivity against major concert venues, and forward-looking limits or prohibitions on long-term exclusive primary ticketing contracts. | The judgment constrains the shape of future contracts; the states would also disable exclusivity already written into current ones. |
| Venue allocation of inventory to rivalsBehaviouralSources a,b | Venues with at least four years remaining on a contract must be offered, annually, the option to sell up to 20% of fee-bearing primary inventory through other eligible providers, subject to a pro rata economic adjustment. Automatic renewal and extension terms are waived, and every major concert venue may use another provider's marketplace for one event a year. | Addressed indirectly, through the requested prohibition on enforcing exclusivity, which the states describe as giving other primary ticketers an opportunity to compete for some or all of a venue's ticketing. | One sets a capped, priced carve-out inside existing deals; the other would remove the contractual barrier rather than meter it. |
| Technical interoperability and API accessBehaviouralSources a,b | The judgment defines the Ticketmaster back-end functions that must support third-party providers, including credentialing, inventory retrieval APIs and feeds, sale validation, barcode and token generation, entry-scan validation and reporting. | Not stated as a standalone remedy category; the states list interoperability and open or API-based ticketing as subjects of remedies discovery. | The judgment specifies the technical surface now; the states are still developing the factual record before proposing terms. |
| Conditioning content on ticketing choice, and retaliationBehaviouralSources a,b | Prohibited. The judgment bars conditioning, retaliation and content steering against venues over their ticketing choice, and provides an independent monitor. | Sought, for a specified period, together with a new independent monitor holding broad and real-time access to records, communications and negotiations. | Both prohibit the conduct; the proposals differ in the investigatory powers attached to the monitor. |
| Tying amphitheatre access to promotion servicesBehaviouralSources d,b | Addressed through the venue provisions of Section V rather than as a general tying prohibition across Live Nation's owned amphitheatres. | Sought: limits or prohibitions on conditioning artist access to Live Nation-controlled venues on use of Live Nation promotion, with owned amphitheatres made available to rival promoters on the same general terms, and possible competitive bidding for promotion on some tour stops. | This is the conduct the jury found unlawful, and only the states' proposal addresses it as a market-wide obligation. |
| Monetary reliefMonetarySources a,b | The judgment provides for payments to settling states, including a fund for state antitrust enforcement costs, rather than damages determined at trial. | Sought: damages for ticket-fee overcharges to residents of plaintiff states, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and restitution. | One is a negotiated payment; the other is contested relief whose amount would be determined in the remedies phase. |
| DurationMixedSources a,b | Eight years from entry, with the monitor serving until expiry, and certain sections deemed expired on a sale of the Ticketmaster business. | Not fixed. Individual behavioural limits are described as running for a specified time period, to be set by the court. | A settlement fixes its own horizon in advance; a litigated remedy is scoped by the court after the remedies proceeding. |
- a DOJ Proposed Final Judgment, filed 12 June 2026.
- b Plaintiff States' Initial Proposed Remedies, ECF No. 1497-1, filed 21 May 2026.
- c DOJ Proposed Final Judgment, Section V and Table 1 (thirteen listed divestiture venues).
- d New York Attorney General release, 15 April 2026 (jury findings).
Primary documents
16 filings, orders and official releases, newest first. Links point at the issuing body, not at a Live Index copy.
- Competitive Impact Statement
The statutory statement of the practices alleged and how the proposed judgment is said to address them.
United States
Competitive impact statementDOJ track
- DOJ Antitrust Division case page
The docket-linked index of filings in the 2024 action.
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Case pageShared
- Proposed Final Judgment
The settlement's substantive terms: non-exclusivity options, contract-term caps, anti-conditioning and anti-retaliation provisions, a monitor, thirteen divestiture venues and an eight-year term.
United States
Proposed final judgmentDOJ track
- Stipulation and Order
Governs the parties' conduct pending entry of the proposed judgment.
United States and defendants
StipulationDOJ track
- United States' Explanation of Procedures Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
Sets out the Tunney Act comment and review procedure.
United States
Procedural filingDOJ track
- Attorney General Bonta Asks Court to Break Up Live Nation/Ticketmaster
Official account of the structural remedies the coalition is seeking.
California Attorney General
Official releaseState-plaintiff track
- Plaintiff States' Letter and Initial Proposed Remedies (ECF No. 1497)
The fourteen remedy categories the states intend to pursue, plus their initial discovery proposal.
Plaintiff states, filed S.D.N.Y.
Remedies proposalState-plaintiff track
- Attorney General James and Coalition of States Win Trial Against Live Nation and Ticketmaster
Official account of the jury's findings on liability and overcharge.
New York Attorney General
Official releaseState-plaintiff track
NoticeDOJ track
- Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
Sets the claims and expert evidence that reached the jury.
U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.
OpinionShared
- Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
The defendants' denial of the allegations.
Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster
AnswerShared
- Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss
Allows the monopolisation and tying claims to proceed.
U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.
OpinionShared
- Opinion Denying Motion to Transfer
Keeps the case in the Southern District of New York.
U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.
OpinionShared
- Amended Complaint
The operative pleading for the remainder of the case.
United States and plaintiff states
Amended complaintShared
- Complaint
The monopolisation and tying complaint that opened the 2024 action.
United States and plaintiff states
ComplaintShared
- Amended Final Judgment (2010 merger case)
The modified and extended consent decree governing the merged company before the 2024 action.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Amended final judgmentShared
Download the timeline
The same structured record this page renders, with provenance fields on every event. The JSON release also carries the remedies comparison and the document library.
- timeline.json — events, remedies and documents
- timeline.csv — one row per event
Source documents are public records. Live Index asks for attribution of the compilation. Corrections are handled under the corrections policy.
How this tracker is maintained
Every event is entered from a primary court document or an official government release, and no event is entered from secondary reporting alone. The record distinguishes what was alleged, what a jury found, what has been proposed, what has been agreed between parties and what a court has ordered, and those words are not used interchangeably. Where a count or a date could not be verified against a document, it is omitted rather than estimated.
The number of plaintiff states shown here — 34 — is taken from the states' own footnote in their remedies filing, which lists them. Press accounts of the coalition differ in how they count, so the filing is used rather than a headline.
Related Live Index work: the Live Nation and Ticketmaster subject hub collects the research this tracker sits alongside, and the reference guide to concert ticket fees documents the charges at issue in the overcharge findings.