Live Nation CEO Pressed on Fees and Competition in Ongoing Antitrust Trial
Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino spent hours on the witness stand this week defending the company’s pricing practices and business structure as part of a federal antitrust trial that could reshape the live entertainment industry.
The case, brought by a coalition of states following a 2024 lawsuit from the Department of Justice, centers on whether Live Nation has used its size and reach, including its control of Ticketmaster, to limit competition and drive up costs for fans.
Much of the questioning focused on internal messages between company employees that appeared to celebrate high fees charged to concertgoers. In one exchange presented in court, employees described “taking advantage” of customers through parking charges and other add-ons.
Rapino called the messages “disgusting” and said they did not reflect how the company operates. He acknowledged the emails existed but said he had not yet taken action against the employees involved, adding that he intended to address the issue.
Lawyers then pressed him on whether those fees, including parking, concessions, and rentals, were part of a broader strategy to increase revenue. Rapino said those decisions are typically made by individual divisions, not at the executive level, and argued that such charges are necessary because artists receive a large share of ticket sales.
That explanation extended to another issue raised in court: a policy at several Live Nation amphitheaters banning outside lawn chairs. Fans instead have to rent chairs on-site, a practice that generated millions in revenue. Rapino said the policy was introduced for safety reasons and rejected the suggestion that the fees were excessive.
A central argument from the states is that Live Nation’s business model, combining ticketing, promotion, and venue operations, gives it too much control over the market. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler pointed to a previous comment by Rapino about building a “moat” around the company’s business, arguing that it reflected an effort to shut out competitors.
Rapino pushed back, saying the company’s goal was to improve its services, not block others. He also denied claims that Live Nation pressures venues into using Ticketmaster by threatening to withhold concerts. “We don’t do that,” he said.
Still, some of the testimony suggested limits on how artists and venues can operate within Live Nation’s system. Rapino acknowledged that the company restricts how tickets it controls can be sold, including blocking certain third-party platforms. He confirmed, for example, that tickets tied to a Paul McCartney tour were not allowed to be sold through an outside service.
He was also asked about a situation involving Adele, where an alternative ticketing approach was rejected. Rapino said the decision was about the platform being used, not the artist herself.
Another point of contention was a 2021 phone call between Rapino and a venue executive who was considering switching to a competing ticketing company. The executive previously testified that Rapino’s comments sounded like a warning that concerts might stop coming to the venue.
Rapino disputed that, saying he was referring to increased competition in the New York market at the time, not issuing any kind of threat.
At several points during the hearing, the tension in the courtroom gave way to brief moments of humor, including instances where Rapino answered questions even after objections had been sustained.
The trial is expected to continue into early April. While Live Nation reached a partial agreement with the Department of Justice earlier in the proceedings, more than 20 states and Washington, D.C., are continuing to pursue the case.
The outcome could have significant consequences for how tickets are sold, how concerts are booked, and how much control a single company can hold over the live music business.
