By Dave Michaels

Music fans and small promoters decried the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger when it was announced 16 years ago. The computer-system meltdown that hobbled the rollout of Taylor Swift's "Eras Tour" and concert ticket prices hitting the $1,000 mark renewed focus on the deal.

Now the entertainment behemoth is facing an existential reckoning, as an antitrust trial gets under way in a Manhattan federal court Monday.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in 2024, alleging that Live Nation illegally dominates the market for major concerts, harming artists, fans and venues. If the government wins, it could then ask a judge to split up Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

Live Nation says the market is broader and more competitive than the Justice Department claims.

Here's what to know:

The 2010 merger's architects will face a grilling

Live Nation Chief Executive Michael Rapino built the company into a global music behemoth that earned $25 billion in revenue last year, in an era when top-selling shows got glitzier and artists shifted to relying on touring rather than recorded music sales for income. Rapino is scheduled to testify early during the trial.

His partner in the 2010 merger, former Ticketmaster CEO and longtime music manager and executive Irving Azoff, also is likely to testify. Azoff represents big artists including Harry Styles and the Eagles, whose tours are handled by Live Nation.

Live Nation's competitors and partners will also face questioning. The Justice Department says Live Nation enlisted Oak View Group, a venue-management company that Azoff co-founded, to pressure arenas to use Ticketmaster.

Oak View's former CEO, Tim Leiweke, was criminally charged last year with rigging the bid to build a new arena in Austin, Texas, but Trump pardoned him in December.

Sports and entertainment execs are expected to testify against Live Nation

The Justice Department's witness list is heavy on National Basketball Association executives and arena operators who are likely to say they are locked into using Ticketmaster if they want access to Live Nation's concerts.

John Abbamondi, the former CEO of the Brooklyn Nets's parent company, is expected to tell the jury how the Barclays Center, where the Nets play, lost access to Live Nation shows after it signed with SeatGeek instead of Ticketmaster. The testimony is central to the Justice Department's claim that Live Nation retaliates against venues. The Dallas Cowboys, which also switched to SeatGeek, are also sending an executive to testify.

Live Nation's biggest competitor, Anschutz Entertainment Group, is likely to talk about how its rival plays hardball to keep its promotion and ticketing business.

A ruling against Live Nation may eventually lower ticket fees -- but it's no sure thing

Many fans and companies complain about the "Ticketmaster tax" -- fees of 20% or more that are tacked on to the price of a show.

The Justice Department says Ticketmaster's exclusive, multiyear contracts with venues are anticompetitive. If a jury agrees, that could open the door to a remedy, such as a ban on exclusive contracts. But the future impact on fees is hard to forecast, legal experts said.

"Right now we do not have real competitors for any of these companies, and it just takes time for competitors to emerge," said Barak Orbach, an antitrust law professor at the University of Arizona.

Live Nation places blame for high ticket prices elsewhere

Live Nation says prices are set by artists and their managers, sometimes below market value, and sophisticated scalpers are to blame for scooping up mispriced tickets and reselling them at a significant markup. The case won't lead to lower prices, it says.

Live Nation also says it doesn't have to share its amphitheaters with rival promoters, citing Supreme Court precedent that lets companies protect their intellectual and physical property from rivals.

Courts have only taken the dramatic step of forcing a company split if they are convinced lesser remedies won't work and that a merger caused serious competitive harm.

"A breakup isn't at all likely here, even if the government wins," said Daniel Francis, an antitrust expert at NYU School of Law.

The Justice Department is battling with internal drama while pursuing the case

The department's antitrust chief, Gail Slater, quit under pressure last month. Her top civil enforcer, Mark Hamer, resigned the day before Slater stepped down. One of the department's trial lawyers on the case disclosed last week that he is leaving the department.

"The legal claims are strong," Orbach said. "That said, the DOJ does not have the talent and is in chaos."

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the antitrust division has steady leadership and the Live Nation trial team "is exceptionally capable and prepared to litigate this case."

Write to Dave Michaels at dave.michaels@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

March 02, 2026 07:00 ET (12:00 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.