Live Nation Asks Supreme Court to End Mass Arbitration Class Action

Live Nation Entertainment has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider its appeal of a pivotal ruling that prevents the concert giant from forcing arbitration in a sweeping consumer antitrust suit. The move comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision striking down what it deemed “unconscionable” arbitration provisions in Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use, which Live Nation had inserted into its online ticket-purchase agreements.

In the petition, filed on May 5, 2025, Live Nation argues that California and Ninth Circuit decisions have improperly singled out its arbitration agreement, allegedly in conflict with federal law and Supreme Court precedent. The company is seeking reversal on two fronts: first, it contends that all forms of arbitration—including so-called “mass arbitration”—deserve protection under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and second, it challenges the application of California’s “arbitration-specific” severability doctrine, which Live Nation says violates the FAA’s core principle placing arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts.

Live Nation v Heckman Background

The company’s bid for Supreme Court intervention marks the latest major step in a consumer-led antitrust lawsuit that claims Live Nation and Ticketmaster unfairly dominate the ticketing industry, driving up prices and stifling competition. U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu recently denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the case, citing plausible allegations of market power and unfair business practices.

A central point of dispute revolves around Live Nation’s partnership with a relatively new arbitration service—New Era ADR—whose procedures were challenged by consumers as “extremely unconscionable” and one-sided. The Ninth Circuit agreed, upholding Judge Wu’s earlier finding that Live Nation’s terms effectively forced claimants into “mass arbitration” procedures lacking many of the safeguards associated with traditional, bilateral arbitration.

Supreme Court Review

Live Nation’s newly filed petition contends that the FAA covers all types of arbitration—“mass” or otherwise—and that the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to enforce its agreement violates Supreme Court precedent. It also challenges the way California courts sever or invalidate arbitration agreements as unduly hostile, pointing to a series of California decisions where arbitration contracts are invalidated at higher rates than other types of contracts.

Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, it would mark a key test of how far arbitration clauses can stretch to cover large-scale consumer disputes under federal law. If it declines, Live Nation will remain obligated to litigate the antitrust claims in federal court, raising the stakes in an already high-profile case that could expose the company to both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

What’s Next

For now, the consumer antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster continues under Judge Wu in California, with discovery and pretrial proceedings moving forward. The government’s separate antitrust action, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and joined by 39 states and the District of Colombia, is scheduled for a trial in March 2026. Live Nation requested to delay the consumer suit until after the government’s trial, but Judge Wu rejected that request.

If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will shape not only the future of Live Nation’s defense strategy but also the broader landscape of mass arbitration. Should the Court refuse to hear the petition, Live Nation’s challenge to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling may come to a definitive close, potentially setting a precedent against similar mass arbitration provisions across the industry.