Ticketmaster fights antitrust lawsuit by arguing that a lack of competition can actually save concertgoers money

Core Argument - Live Nation's lawyers argue that 27 states cannot prove direct injury to their residents due to the company's actions, and therefore lack standing to seek damages [2] - The company claims that increased competition could lead to higher ticket prices for concertgoers, not lower [2] - Live Nation's attorney dismisses the idea that multiple ticketers would benefit consumers as "only a theory" [3] Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, filed 8 months ago, seeks to break up Live Nation, which controls 60 of the top 100 event amphitheaters in the US [3] - The DOJ alleges that Live Nation forces artists to use its promoters and Ticketmaster, creating a monopolistic ecosystem that harms competitors and increases costs for artists and fans [4] - The 27 states are seeking triple monetary damages, arguing that their residents have been harmed by inflated ticket prices due to lack of competition [4] Legal Arguments - Live Nation argues that concertgoers are too far removed from the alleged monopolistic conduct for states to sue on their behalf [5] - The company claims it is inefficient for states to "piggyback" on the federal government's claims over the same conduct [5] - Live Nation's attorney suggests that allowing rival promoters to bid for access to its amphitheaters could actually increase event prices [6] Judicial Response - The judge expressed skepticism about Live Nation's argument that competition would not lower ticket prices, calling the idea of consumer savings "a very straightforward theory" [7] - The judge appeared to agree with Live Nation's argument that it cannot be forced to rent its amphitheaters to rival promoters [10] Next Steps - The judge has given both parties until Monday to file final arguments, limited to five pages, regarding Live Nation's dismissal motions [10]