The US Department Of Justice is preparing to seek court approval for the deal it agreed with Live Nation to settle the big antitrust lawsuit it filed against the live giant and its Ticketmaster subsidiary, which were accused of anti-competitive conduct.
In a new court filing, the DoJ says no hearing is necessary to publicly scrutinise the deal if the court concludes that the agreement is “in the public interest”. Though given the deal has been widely criticised, including by ex-DoJ officials, as being politically motivated and the result of intense lobbying activities, presumably it’s not assured that the judge will reach that conclusion.
A trial was already underway to consider the DoJ’s antitrust arguments against Live Nation when the deal was announced in March, which included modest commitments by the live music company to change some of its practices. 33 of the US states that were also involved in the litigation decided not to settle and went on to convince the jury that Live Nation operates an unlawful monopoly.
Judge Arun Subramanian still has to decide what sanctions he will force on Live Nation as a result of that ruling, though the US states are pushing for the splitting up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, a dramatic move originally supported by the DoJ.
Nevertheless, the DoJ stands by its deal and the much more nominal changes it will force on Live Nation. As does Live Nation itself, unsurprisingly. It told Law360 yesterday that its settlement deal is “a meaningful resolution that fully responds to the claims raised in the case while preserving the competition and innovation that benefit artists, venues and fans”.
The deal, “expands promoter flexibility and preserves venue choice”, the company’s statement continued, before concluding, “our success has always depended on delivering value for our partners, and we are confident we will continue to compete and grow by providing the industry’s best tools, services and support”.
It’s no secret that Live Nation hired lobbyists close to President Donald Trump to pile on the political pressure to get a settlement deal out of the DoJ, despite the department’s antitrust division wanting to proceed with the case.
Two ex-DoJ officials discussed the politicisation of the process earlier this month at the annual conference of the National Independent Venue Association.
According to Variety, the department’s recently departed Deputy Director Of Litigation, David Dahlquist, told the conference, “When I stood up and gave the opening statement in this case, I believed that we were going to win. And when the settlement was entered, I still believed that we were going to win … I knew the case, I knew the witnesses, I knew the evidence”.
Dahlquist also confirmed he wasn’t involved in negotiating the settlement, despite leading on the lawsuit in court. “I had not seen the settlement terms until the morning it was announced”, he explained, adding, “I was neither asked nor did I provide input into the settlement that was ultimately entered into by the Department Of Justice”.
Another former DoJ lawyer, Roger Alford, said he’s convinced the department would not have settled the Live Nation case without the live giant’s lobbying, adding that it was standing up to political lobbying of that kind that resulted in him and his former boss Gail Slater being pushed out of the DoJ’s antitrust division.
“I was fired for standing up to inappropriate lobbying”, he told the NIVA event. “We wanted to resolve these cases on the merits. There was lobbying that was occurring in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case. We stood up to that and said ‘that’s wrong’ and, by doing that, we were fired”.
We will see if Subramanian takes any of this into account when deciding if the DoJ’s Live Nation deal is in the public interest.