New releases, music videos and album news — indie, rap, rock and pop. Always covering Ren, Chris Webby, Sam Tompkins, bbno$, CHINCHILLA, Muse, Yungblud and more.
States cite new appeals-court ruling to defend Live Nation monopoly verdict – Live Nation says it backs throwing the verdict out
Live Nation has told a New York federal court that a new appeals-court ruling cited by the Plaintiff States actually undermines their case, not helps it, as both sides prepare for a court hearing on the company's bid to overturn the April antitrust verdict against it. The dispute centres on a July 13 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the states arguing it supports their opposition to Live Nation's post-trial motions, while Live Nation insists the ruling instead backs its own effort to have the verdict thrown out or a new trial ordered.
The states pointed to Cumulus Media New Holdings v. The Nielsen Co., in which the Second Circuit upheld a finding that Nielsen had likely unlawfully tied its national and local market data products, arguing this shows coercion need not be explicit. Live Nation countered that the ruling actually requires proof a buyer was coerced into an unwanted product and that competitors suffered market harm, neither of which it says exists in its case. Judge Arun Subramanian is due to hear arguments on Friday 31 July on Live Nation's motions targeting the April verdict, which found the company illegally monopolised the US ticketing and amphitheatre markets and overcharged consumers by $1.72 per ticket; separately, Live Nation and the Department of Justice have also moved to block certain states from obtaining discovery into the government's settlement with the company.
In short
- Live Nation and states clash over how a new court ruling affects the case
- Judge to hear Live Nation's bid to overturn verdict on 31 July
- Jury found $1.72-per-ticket overcharge from illegal monopoly
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The states argue that Cumulus supports their opposition to overturning the verdict because it demonstrates that illegal product tying does not require explicit or documentable coercion. Since the Second Circuit upheld Nielsen's tying liability based on inferred coercion flowing from the defendant's market power, this precedent validates the legal theory under which the jury found Live Nation guilty in April—that a firm with dominance in one market unlawfully forces customers to accept unwanted services in another market.
The case against
Live Nation counters that Cumulus actually supports its position because the ruling requires substantive proof of two discrete elements: that buyers were genuinely coerced into accepting unwanted products, and that competitors suffered actual competitive harm. Applying this stricter reading to the current case, Live Nation contends the April verdict rests on insufficient evidence of either element, as the services in question were not demonstrably unwanted and rival ticketing and venue operators were not shown to have suffered material injury.
Explained simply
Live Nation, which dominates the US live music ticketing market, was found guilty in April 2026 of illegally monopolising that market. The court's verdict determined that the company's dominance prevented fair competition and allowed it to overcharge consumers. Live Nation is now seeking to overturn this finding.
A monopoly occurs when one company controls a market, typically allowing it to raise prices and reduce consumer choice. Antitrust laws exist to prevent companies from using unfair practices to achieve or maintain such dominance. This case matters because it addresses market power in an industry that affects millions of entertainment consumers.
The case now centres on how a recent appeals court ruling should be interpreted. The states argue it supports keeping the verdict, whilst Live Nation argues it actually justifies overturning it. A federal judge is expected to rule on the company's motions to dismiss the verdict or order a retrial.