Ellie Goulding Sues Former Managers Over Live Nation Ties
Pop star Ellie Goulding has sued her former managers Ben Mawson and Ed Millet of TaP Management, alleging they failed to disclose that their company was owned by Live Nation and steered her into deals benefiting the touring giant. The lawsuit, filed against the two men but not Live Nation itself, argues that their financial ties created a conflict of interest that stopped them representing her interests properly during their time managing her career.
Mawson and Millet managed Goulding from 2018 to 2025, earning a 20% commission on her earnings, during which time Live Nation moved from partial to full ownership of TaP's parent company HNOE, with Mawson becoming its CEO. Goulding claims contracts barred the pair from doing anything that might reduce clients' business with Live Nation, and that they reported to a Live Nation executive, leading to deals covering her touring, merchandise and a documentary; she is now seeking unspecified damages for breach of fiduciary duty. She has since returned to former manager Sarah Stennett and WME, and will release a new album, "I Know Too Much," next month; the case follows a jury ruling earlier this year that found Live Nation's Ticketmaster ownership constituted an illegal monopoly.
- Ellie Goulding sues ex-managers over undisclosed Live Nation ownership ties.
- Claims conflict of interest pushed her into Live Nation-favouring deals.
- Follows a separate jury finding Live Nation's Ticketmaster grip monopolistic.
New here? Start with this
Ellie Goulding is a British pop singer whose career includes recording music and performing live. Artists often rely on managers to advise them on deals and make decisions about areas such as touring, merchandise and media projects.
Ben Mawson and Ed Millet, of TaP Management, managed Goulding from 2018 to 2025. Managers are usually paid a share of a client’s earnings, so they are expected to act in the client’s interests and disclose ties that could affect their advice. Live Nation is a major company that promotes concerts and operates Ticketmaster; its ownership of TaP’s parent company is relevant to the dispute.
The case raises questions about how management relationships work when a manager’s company is connected to a large business that may also work with the artist. It comes amid wider scrutiny of Live Nation’s position in the live music industry and its ownership of Ticketmaster.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Managers occupy a fiduciary position requiring undivided loyalty to their clients. When Mawson and Millet were contractually prevented from acting against Live Nation's interests whilst managing Goulding's career, this created an irreconcilable conflict of interest that they were obliged to disclose transparently. The structure—whereby they reported to Live Nation executives and earned commission whilst steered into deals benefiting their parent company—suggests their duty of loyalty was compromised. If Goulding was not fully apprised of this dynamic at the outset, they breached their fundamental obligation to prioritise her interests above all others.
The case against
Management companies in the music industry commonly have complex commercial relationships, and having a parent company with touring interests need not harm an artist if managed transparently. The contracts Goulding signed were available for her legal review, and any relationships were contained within those terms. She remained with these managers for seven years and achieved commercial success during that period, suggesting she was adequately served. Without demonstrable evidence that she received materially worse terms than available alternatives, proving breach of fiduciary duty requires showing actual harm rather than merely the existence of a relationship between commercial entities.
Art Business Celebrity Companies Culture Entertainment UK World