PENN Interactive’s Post

Most of us have bought tickets to some event, be it a concert, movie, or just a local talk. It's safe to say that we have all experienced that frustration with particular ticketing platforms that charge outrageous fees, nearly rivaling the cost of the base ticket itself. They will go to great lengths to buy out top venues (and if they can't buy them out, they'll make exclusive ticketing agreements) where top shows need to perform and charge those high fees to customers, knowing that the shows will likely sell very well (and many cases, sell out) raking in the money. Today, the United States Department of Justice and 30 state and district attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. They identified several monopolistic practices that have stifled competition that could bring better experiences and pricing to customers and artists. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next several years. Let's hope this helps everyone in the industry, as we have been fueling record profits for these two companies with difficult ways around their systems and practices. How have you been affected by high ticket fees and ticketing systems that make the purchasing experience inconvenient? https://lnkd.in/gJKg6YT9

A new bill introduced by an influential California state senator takes aim at Ticketmaster, whose stranglehold on the entertainment industry has long vexed concertgoers with its fees and out-of-control pricing. Time to Tackle the Taylor Swift Ticketmaster Turmoil | TechModo Democrat Buffy Wicks, who currently serves as the chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, has introduced legislation that her office says would give event-goers substantially more options when it comes to purchasing tickets for events. Politico, which was first to report on Wicks’s new legislation, describes a policy that would “lift restrictions” on the resale of tickets while creating more options for consumers. Wicks envisions a future scenario more akin to the consumer experience of travel websites, where event-goers have a choice between a variety of different sellers, not just one omnipotent platform. Wicks legislation takes aim at “exclusivity” clauses, which have historically allowed platforms like Ticketmaster to lay claim to venues, barring them from contracting with other ticket sellers that would give consumers options. As some commentators have noted, Ticketmaster’s exclusivity contracts effectively put venues up against a wall, forcing them to accept the company’s draconian terms or risk being unable to book the massive stars that Ticketmaster keeps for itself. Wicks legislation, AB2808, was introduced in the California state legislature in February and would force ticket sellers like Ticketmaster to include an API that allows competing sellers to offer tickets for an event on their own platform. The bill would further make it “unlawful” for a ticketing provider or a venue “to provide [ticketing] services” on an “exclusive or discriminatory basis, as specified,” presumably referring to an exclusive arrangement in which companies like Ticketmaster hog all the ticket sales. The bill would also free up the ticket reseller market, allowing for greater options for consumers. Firms that were found to be in violation of the law’s stipulations would be ordered to pay fines. “We want to make sure that we have competition and choice for consumers so we don’t end up with situations like the Taylor Swift concerts—like ‘Lord of the Flies’ attempts to get tickets,” Wicks told Politico. Ticketmaster has been the de facto place to buy concert and sporting events tickets ever since it completed a $2.5 billion merger with Live Nation, a massive venue operator, in 2010. The merger thrust two industry giants into each other’s arms, thus creating what very much looks like and functions as a monopoly. Some projections estimate that the two companies jointly control 70 percent of the ticketed events market. Although Ticketmaster has been a pestilence on the American concert-goer for years, regulators really only started paying attention after the company massively flubbed the ticket sales for mega pop star

Dusting off my ticketing hat, here's what you should know about Live Nation Entertainment / Ticketmaster getting sued by the government: * The government created this. In 2009, the Justice Department approved a merger that led to...exactly what they're saying happened now. That wasn't really all that long ago, and it was pretty obvious at the time where this would go. The DOJ knew this, made a stern face at both companies and made them promise not to misbehave if they approved the deal. * Breaking up TM and LN won't affect consumers the way you might imagine it will. Neither fees nor ticket prices are driven by TM/LN's "monopoly" power. I could write a whole piece about that, but I've already written that piece a half dozen times over the years so...pass. * A breakup would create changes inside the industry. Some new opportunities will shake loose for smaller competitors. Independent venues might have a little more leverage. The market for paying acts will change in some ways that are a little hard to foresee. * The two parts of the organization probably should be broken up. No good can come of the biggest promoter and one of the biggest venue owners and the biggest ticketing system living under the same roof. If the breakup happens, expect Ticketmaster to grow faster and be more profitable on its own. I'll let you figure that one out yourself. Let's see what happens. https://lnkd.in/gFs2F_BD

Live Nation Entertainment reported a 21% increase in revenue for Q1 2024, reaching $3.8 billion. This growth was driven by strong ticket demand, especially for arena and amphitheater shows, which saw double-digit sales growth. Revenue from concerts rose by 26% to $2.9 billion, while ticketing operations increased by 5% to $284.1 million. Sponsorships also contributed, adding $211 million, up by 24% from 2023. However, Live Nation swung to an operating loss, citing estimated loss contingencies related to Astroworld lawsuits in Texas, marked at $185.9 million. Despite this, CEO Michael Rapino remains optimistic, noting strong global fan demand and ongoing momentum for live events. #LiveNation #LiveMusic

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected to file a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, the parent company of Ticketmaster, alleging anticompetitive practices in the ticketing industry. Live Nation's control of more than 80% of the market for primary ticket sales in the US has raised concerns about limited competition and increased pricing. The lawsuit is anticipated to focus on Ticketmaster's exclusive contracts with concert venues and Live Nation's dominance over live performance tours. Live Nation has denied setting high fees and ticket prices, attributing pricing decisions to artists and venues. The lawsuit follows a years-long investigation into Live Nation's merger with Ticketmaster in 2010, which aimed to prevent monopolistic behavior. This legal action is part of the Biden administration's broader efforts to address monopolization and antitrust issues in big businesses. Follow Amanda Newman to stay up to date with technology. https://lnkd.in/ddfjxEWF

If you're a music fan, you know all too well just how difficult and expensive it can be to purchase concert tickets nowadays. But an impending antitrust lawsuit by the DOJ against Ticketmaster and Live Nation Entertainment seeks to promote competition and provide consumers with relief. While the lawsuit will target anti-competitive practices, true relief for fans may require stricter regulation of secondary ticket markets, as seen in Europe. 🎟️🛡️ Check out my blog to learn how this development could reshape the concert ticketing landscape! #Ticketmaster #DOJ #Concerts #ConsumerProtection

The DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster highlights Oak View Group (OVG) 73 times, alleging collusion to stifle competition in the live entertainment sector. In fact, OVG which operates both London's Budweiser Gardens and is overseeing the upcoming 'Hamilton Arena Project' has its own line in the Department of Justice complaint/document. So why does this matter to smaller markets of independent venues such as Kitchener or those who do not use Ticketmaster or have a massive purchasing department for live entertainment? 1. OVG ceded the tour promotions business to Live Nation, and Live Nation returned the favour, ceding the arena development and consultancy business to OVG and its OVG (Arena) Alliance. In plain words - not our arena or venue, not your show to have. 2. OVG’s presence in the venue world enables it to steer Live Nation content to its venues, whether owned or merely operated, and impose the use of Ticketmaster on those venues through a 2022 deal between the two parties that made Ticketmaster the official ticketing provider of OVG. Although OVG is not directly sued, its close relationship with Live Nation raises questions about its role and potential indirect consequences from the case. Consequences that small communities with independent venues not using Ticketmaster (or its subsidiaries such as TicketWeb or FrontGate Tickets) feel directly (or indirectly) with re-routing tours or events away from such venues or communities drawing profits to the OVG, or Live Nation owned subsidiaries. #kitchener #ticketing #livenation #liveentertainment https://lnkd.in/gedb6JR7

The US government did not mince words yesterday: Live Nation and Ticketmaster need to split. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and 30 state and district attorneys general sued Live Nation, which refers to itself as the “largest live entertainment company in the world,” lodging a 120-page complaint that it purposefully stifles competition, hurts consumers, and unfairly jacks up ticket prices. The suit alleges that Live Nation threatened to retaliate against venues that didn’t use its ticketing service and that artists who don’t use Live Nation’s tour promo services can’t perform at any of its venues. The DOJ said the company controls over 70% of ticket sales at major concert venues in the country. Plus, Live Nation controls 265 venues in North America and 60 of the top 100 amphitheaters in the US. “This is a travesty!” Cried the Justice Department, which allowed the merger to happen 14 years ago. Industry pros had begged the DOJ to prevent Live Nation from buying Ticketmaster, warning of the same concerns the DOJ now cites in seeking to break them up. Then came Taylor Swift… The Eras Tour’s ticket-buying process was such a mess that a bipartisan group of senators brought Live Nation execs to Capitol Hill last year to grill them on the company’s practices. The DOJ’s investigation was announced shortly after the Swiftie debacle, though the agency claimed it had already been investigating the company. Live Nation called the lawsuit “baseless.” In a company blog post, an executive claimed that the suit ignores price factors like artists’ popularity and scalpers. The post also says that Live Nation’s net profit margin was only 1.4% last year, too low to indicate a monopoly. A long road ahead…the whole thing is expected to take years to move through the courts, especially since the suit requests a jury trial (which is unusual for this type of case).—MM https://lnkd.in/eesSYA8b

AEG CEO Jay Marciano Calls Live Nation A Monopoly, Predicts DOJ Victory in Lawsuit https://ift.tt/Dex5FaN AEG chairman/CEO Jay Marciano says Live Nation acts like a monopoly and agrees with the U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to break the concert giant and Ticketmaster up, according to an email Marciano sent out to employees on Friday (May 31). In the memo, the executive accuses the company of “preventing other businesses from competing” and “leaving consumers to suffer the consequences.” In the two-page email, Marciano said the lawsuit was an important milestone for addressing alleged monopolistic behavior in the concert business, noting “the entire ecosystem of our industry” is at stake as the case winds its way through the U.S. legal system. Related To Understand Live Nation's Real Antitrust Issue, Look to Microsoft 05/31/2024 “Notwithstanding its claims about its profit margins or its market share, it is a monopoly, and it uses its monopoly power to impose its will on the live entertainment business,” wrote Marciano of Live Nation, later writing, “We strongly believe that DOJ’s lawsuit will succeed and ultimately bring sweeping changes.” Billboard obtained a copy of the email, which can be read in full below. An AEG spokesman did not respond to a request for comment regarding the letter. Live Nation had not responded to a request for comment at press time. From: Office of Jay Marciano No doubt all of you are closely following the ongoing media coverage in the wake of the Department of Justice lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. As I mentioned in my note from last week, we spent the last few days carefully reviewing the DOJ filing, as well as Live Nation’s subsequent response to the complaint. AEG has long maintained that Ticketmaster has a monopoly in the U.S. ticketing marketplace and uses that monopoly power to subsidize Live Nation’s content businesses, preventing other businesses from competing in those areas and leaving consumers to suffer the consequences. This lawsuit is not simply DOJ suing to break up a monopoly; at stake is the entire ecosystem of our industry, one that has long suffered from a badly broken ticketing model. As you know, the cornerstone of Live Nation’s monopoly is Ticketmaster’s exclusive ticketing contracts with the vast majority of major concert venues in the United States. These agreements block competition and innovation and result in higher ticketing fees, denying artists the ability to choose who will ticket their shows and how much their fans should pay. Following the DOJ filing, Live Nation issued several public comments in service of its ongoing strategy to maintain its dominance – unfairly blaming others for industry problems they have created, making false and misleading statements, and dismissing the significance of the case. Artists, venues, and brokers are not responsible for the broken live entertainment business model in this country – that res...

FINE-ill-fee. (Finally) SUMone calculated the endgame. Blame the customer - patient. Arrogant argument from Live Nation - you can't FIX the (price fixing) process. Never mind steering, bait and switch, price fixing, tying, price gouging. And colluding. Why don't I tag along and throw my name in the hat (third party contracted or not)? This incites scalping.  Fee EnterSurprise (Free Enterprise) and incorporates Surprise Billing. What's at Stakeholder for the Payment Processors? What is a Cyber-Ring? (siphoning financial gain for ill gotten goods embezzling commerce from legitimate vendors).   Then add on (reported by concert customers) double ticket price Junk Fees for what purpose? Financial Gain who has nothing to 'due' with facilitating any event function. This CAPTIVE payment process usurps other vendors' hotels, restaurants, gas, and tax revenue. So it is not about the Music Artist (or doctor) at all. It's about the Scam Artist taking advantage and profiting from SUMthing that is none of their business.