Entertainment giant Live Nation and its ticketing subsidiary Ticketmaster were hit with an antitrust lawsuit by the Department of Justice earlier this year, alleging monopolistic business practices. While the music conglomerate hoped to move the case to Washington, D.C., the DOJ said the suit should remain in New York.
Live Nation asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to move the case from his Southern District of New York court to the District Court for the District of Columbia last month. The defendant’s attorneys argued that the D.C. district has jurisdiction under the consent decree that has been in effect since Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged back in 2010. The DOJ claimed that when the companies merged, the consent decree “failed to restrain Live Nation and Ticketmaster from violating other antitrust laws in increasingly serious ways.”
| READ: Live Nation Fights to Move Antitrust Case to D.C.; Preserve Documents Access |
Live Nation’s attorneys noted in the motion that the DOJ’s case is essentially a rehash of the consent decree itself, rather than anything new implied by the multiple violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act the government is arguing have taken place since the companies merged. Furthermore, they argue the DOJ has no right to pursue a separate legal action against the merger — as the consent decree was agreed to in 2010 and then extended again in 2019 — so, the case must be brought back to Washington, D.C. to re-negotiate the consent agreement for a third time.
However, the plaintiffs argue that the case extends far beyond the consent decree, and as Live Nation’s two rival ticketing companies — StubHub and SeatGeek — are headquartered in New York City, the change is unnecessary.
“This case belongs in New York, a city that has long been a hub in the live music industry for artists, fans and industry participants,” the motion reads. “New York is home to two of Ticketmaster’s few competitors twenty-plus entities from the parties’ initial disclosures, numerous amphitheaters and arenas, material non-party and party witnesses, and defendants’ largest office outside of California.”
While Subramanian has not commented on the motion, he previously stated that he would be inclined to keep the case in his New York District Court.
The entertainment giant has already sought to have many portions of the case dismissed entirely, but is clearly pursuing multiple angles of attack against the sprawling lawsuit seeking to break it up after more than a decade of allegations of anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior. They’ve also fought to keep key corporate officers — including antitrust czar Dan Wall — able to access all discovery files in legal filings made last month.
Subramanian proposed a two-tiered access system or case-related documents, preserving the right of Wall and Kimberly Tobias (Live Nation’s SVP of Litigation) to participate in the corporation’s defense alongside external counsel while restricting their access to certain documents that could provide them with confidential information about Live Nation’s competition.
Last month, Subramanian reminded both parties that “discovery needs to get going in this case, because the March 2, 2026 trial date is set in stone.”
