An American judge has refused Live Nation’s request that the US Department Of Justice antitrust lawsuit against it should be heard in Washington DC, rather than in New York, rejecting Live Nation’s claim that a previous agreement with the DoJ from 2010 means the dispute has to be fought out in DC. A second claim that pursuing this litigation in DC would just be more convenient was also rejected, with the judge concluding that Live Nation “doesn't come close” to proving that argument.
Live Nation, having seemingly decided it was in its best interests for the legal battle to happen in DC, cited a ‘retention of jurisdiction provision’ in the 2010 agreement as the reason why the DoJ’s lawsuit accusing the live giant of anti-competitive conduct should be moved to Washington.
However, in his judgement denying Live Nation’s request, New York judge Arun Subramanian writes,“this case doesn’t fall within the scope of that provision”. Meanwhile, Live Nation also failed to demonstrate that the transfer to DC “would foster convenience or the interests of justice”.
The 2010 agreement, known as the ‘consent decree’, allowed the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster to go ahead, addressing some of the DoJ’s legal objections to the deal.
Subramanian explains in his ruling how the ‘retention of jurisdiction provision’ in the consent decree works. It basically says that the DC courts should handle any legal proceedings that seek to “carry out or construe” the consent decree, or “enforce compliance” or “punish violations of its provisions”, or “modify any of its provisions”.
Live Nation “doesn’t really argue that this case is an effort to ‘carry out’ the decree, ‘construe’ it, ‘enforce’ it, or ‘punish’ for violating its requirements”, the judge notes. This is at least in part because Live Nation is not only accused of breaching the terms of its consent decree in the new lawsuit, but also of committing anticompetitive conduct that violates various federal and state-level laws in the US.
However, the DoJ’s lawsuit is pushing for the court to force Live Nation to sell Ticketmaster, basically reversing the 2010 merger, which Live Nation argues is a major modification of the consent decree - and that is something that should be dealt with by a DC court.
Subramanian disagrees, saying that Live Nation’s argument is “at odds with the language of the decree”. The decree “didn’t green-light defendants’ merger for all time”, he adds, noting that the agreement simply meant that the DoJ would drop its then objections to the merger in return for various commitments from Live Nation, including that it “refrain from retaliatory behaviour” against its competitors.
This meant that “the practical effect of the decree was to remove an immediate barrier to the merger”, the judge continues. “But nothing in the decree insulated the merged entity from future antitrust challenges, including this case”. As a result, he says, Live Nation and Ticketmaster “remain liable for violating the laws at issue” and the DoJ does not have to “modify the decree to seek enforcement of those laws”.
But what about it being more convenient for Live Nation - which has its headquarters in New York’s meatpacking district - to fight the legal battle in Washington DC? Subramanian says Live Nation itself “acknowledges that New York and DC are equally convenient”. And given the proceedings are already underway in New York, changing the court at this stage would be very inconvenient indeed.
"A midstream transfer would derail this case”, he says, noting that the DoJ’s lawsuit is now “steadily moving to summary judgment next year and trial in early 2026”. Therefore, there are plenty of good reasons to keep the litigation in New York, and no good reasons to move it.