States Fight Live Nation Bid to Undo Monopoly Verdict as New Filing Details White House Settlement Talks

The state attorneys general who won a sweeping antitrust verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster are urging a federal judge to reject the companies’ effort to wipe away the jury’s decision, arguing that Live Nation’s request for a new trial is little more than an attempt to relitigate a case it already lost.

The filing, submitted June 18 in the Southern District of New York, comes amid a flurry of post-verdict activity in the landmark ticketing case. In separate filings, the states also opposed Live Nation’s bid for judgment as a matter of law, the court formally accepted an amicus brief from prominent antitrust economists supporting the states’ damages theory, and Live Nation disclosed new details about the DOJ and White House settlement discussions that produced the federal government’s proposed no-breakup deal.

RELATED: Prominent Economists Back States’ Damages Theory In LN/TM Antitrust Case | DOJ/LN Settlement Fine Print Leaves Ticketmaster at Center of Ticketing System | LN Wins Pause on Breakup Discovery While It Tries to Undo Monopoly Verdict

In their opposition to Live Nation’s motion for a new trial, the states argue there’s no legal reason that the court should set aside the jury’s decision after five weeks of testimony, hundreds of exhibits and four days of jury deliberations.

“Nothing about this case comes close to meeting the exceptional circumstances that would warrant a new trial,” the states wrote.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster have asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to set aside or narrow the verdict through post-trial motions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, damages testimony, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. The states counter that the companies are simply asking the court to substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the jury.

The new-trial opposition also defends several categories of evidence Live Nation has attacked since the verdict. Those include evidence about ancillary fees charged to fans at amphitheaters, pre-2020 conduct used to explain later alleged anticompetitive behavior, venue fears of retaliation, evidence about nonexclusive ticketing practices in Europe, and damages testimony from economist Rosa Abrantes-Metz.

The damages fight remains one of the most important post-verdict issues. Live Nation has argued that Abrantes-Metz’s model wrongly failed to offset alleged per-ticket overcharges by accounting for upfront payments Ticketmaster makes to venues. The states say that argument confuses fixed payments between businesses with the per-ticket fees paid by fans.

That position received a boost Monday when Judge Subramanian approved the filing of an amicus brief that opposes Live Nation’s attack on the Abrantes-Metz testimony by a trio of prominent antitrust economists. The brief, authored by Nancy Rose, Fiona Scott Morton and Steven Berry, argues that upfront payments to venues should not be treated as if they reduced the overcharge allegedly paid by consumers. The court’s order does not decide the damages issue, but it formally accepts the economists’ brief as part of the post-verdict record.

New Filing Details Scale of Political Dealings in Live Nation/DOJ Settlement

A Monday disclosure filing – required by antitrust trial rules – showed that a bevy of Live Nation and Ticketmaster representatives had in-person meetings, videoconferences, phone calls and written communications with DOJ officials and members of the White House for more than a year before the trial was abruptly halted with the surprise announcement of the settlement.

Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, president and CFO Joe Berchtold, corporate and regulatory affairs executive Dan Wall, Live Nation director (and longtime Trump ally) Richard Grenell, outside legal advisers and consultants, including Kellyanne Conway and Mike Davis, among the company representatives who substantively participated in one or more settlement-related communications.

The filing says Live Nation representatives sought to open settlement discussions with the DOJ Antitrust Division between February and June 2025. Settlement discussions began in September 2025, when Live Nation made an initial proposal. DOJ countered in January 2026. Discussions then continued through February and March among company representatives, the Antitrust Division, the offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, and later the Office of the White House Counsel.

The disclosure also states that Rapino discussed “a variety of topics related to Live Nation’s business” with President Donald Trump in February 2026. According to the filing, the DOJ lawsuit came up during that discussion, but “no substantive terms regarding any potential settlement were discussed.”

The most consequential detail may be the March 5 meeting. Live Nation says representatives of the company, the Antitrust Division, the offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, and the Office of the White House Counsel all met that day to finalize the material terms of the proposed settlement. A term sheet was signed the same day.

That timeline is likely to fuel continued scrutiny of the federal settlement, which split DOJ and six settling states from the larger group of states that continued to trial and won. The DOJ’s proposed final judgment, filed earlier this month, would leave Live Nation and Ticketmaster intact rather than requiring a corporate breakup. It remains subject to Tunney Act review, including public notice, a comment period and a final public-interest determination by Judge Subramanian.

Subramanian has not yet ruled on the post-trial motions or the final settlement.

Plaintiffs Opposition to Request for New Trial (1529)

Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law (1528)

Defendants Disclosure of Communications with DOJ/Trump Officials