This week in the Live Nation antitrust trial marked a pivotal transition from the plaintiffs’ sweeping narrative of monopoly power to the defense’s attempt to reframe the company as a competitive, artist-driven business. Decibel has obtained transcripts of much of the trial testimony so far, with officials like Omar Al-joulani, president of touring, testifying that much of the routing decisions at Live Nation were made by the artists, not the promoter while lawyers for the states relied on expert testimony and internal documents to argue that Live Nation and Ticketmaster wield their market power to steer the industry and extract higher fees from fans.

As the defense formally opened its case, Live Nation sought to dismantle the idea that it acts as a gatekeeper in live music. The centerpiece of that argument came from Al-joulani who testified that artists—not promoters—ultimately control where and how tours are routed.

Al-joulani described a highly competitive environment where multiple promoters compete to win business from artists. In his telling, Live Nation has no coercive power—only influence earned through service and infrastructure. He emphasized that artists routinely choose other promoters, pointing to major acts like Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran as examples of performers who have not consistently worked with Live Nation.

He also rejected the idea that Live Nation leverages its ownership of venues and Ticketmaster to force its agenda on venues. Recommendations to play Live Nation venues or use Ticketmaster, he said, are based on quality and efficiency—not corporate alignment. He framed the company as “artist obsessed,” not “venue obsessed,” and even went so far as to dismiss the notion of a defined amphitheater market altogether.

This testimony is central to the defense strategy: if artists freely choose promoters and venues, then the government’s monopoly theory weakens considerably.

However, testimony surrounding Ticketmaster’s secondary ticketing business complicated Live Nation’s public stance.

Previously, CEO Michael Rapino had claimed that Ticketmaster’s involvement in resale markets was a reluctant response to a lack of regulation. But this week, plaintiffs introduced internal communications that suggested a more deliberate strategy to grow that segment.

Ticketmaster executive David Marcus was confronted with a 2023 internal presentation celebrating the rapid growth of resale revenue, which more than doubled from $2 billion in 2019 to $4.3 billion in 2022—outpacing overall company growth.

Attorneys for the states also highlighted email exchanges in which Rapino argued that company tools like Verified Fan wasn’t delivering the outcome fans had expected, nor was it keeping a large volume of tickets off the secondary market.

In one message, Rapino questioned why the company should limit secondary sales at all, stating plainly that Ticketmaster “want[s] to be in secondary.” Another internal message described a strategy to “boil the frog”—gradually increasing Ticketmaster’s share of revenue in ways that might go unnoticed until the company had gained significant leverage. Attorneys for the states argued that the company was disingenuous about Verified Fan and was presenting it to artists and agents as a tool to fight scalpers as opposed to a tool to grow its market share.

Earlier in the week, the states introduced economist Dr. Nicholas Hill, who presented data he said suggested that Live Nation retaliates against venues that abandon Ticketmaster. His analysis of arena bookings, he argued, showed venues that switched away from Ticketmaster saw a drop in Live Nation-promoted shows, while those that adopted Ticketmaster saw a significant increase.

Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz, the plaintiffs’ damages expert, then quantified the alleged harm to consumers. After analyzing hundreds of contracts, she concluded that Ticketmaster charges venues an average of $2.30 more per ticket than competitors like AXS. Because most of that cost is passed on, fans ultimately pay roughly $1.56 to $1.72 extra per ticket.

Her methodology—using AXS as a benchmark for a competitive market—came under attack during cross-examination. The defense argued that AXS was not a true peer to Ticketmaster for much of the analyzed period and that many promoters working at AEG, which own AXS, prefer Ticketmaster over AXS.

One of the most striking developments came from testimony by Oak View Group (OVG) president Chris Granger, which shed light on how Ticketmaster’s influence may extend beyond direct contracts.

OVG, a major venue management company, signed a 10-year agreement with Ticketmaster in 2022. The deal not only grants Ticketmaster exclusive rights at OVG-owned venues but also requires OVG to actively promote Ticketmaster to the hundreds of venues it manages.

Granger acknowledged that OVG is contractually obligated to “sing the praises” of Ticketmaster when advising venues—even while also having a fiduciary duty to act in those venues’ best interests.

The agreement goes further: OVG must push for annual increases in Ticketmaster’s share of ticketing fees and encourage venues using rival services to switch to Ticketmaster under specific revenue splits.

Plaintiffs presented evidence that these arrangements often resulted in worse financial outcomes for venues. In one case, six venues analyzed by OVG itself were projected to earn less under Ticketmaster’s terms—yet all six still switched.

Perhaps most damaging, Granger admitted that OVG did not disclose key financial incentives it received from Ticketmaster, including a $20 million signing bonus and potential annual bonuses worth millions. When pressed, he conceded that the company “should have” disclosed this information.

With the plaintiffs close to resting their case, the defense is now tasked with persuading the jury that Live Nation’s success stems from competition and innovation—not coercion or control.

This week highlighted the stark contrast between those narratives. On one hand, Live Nation executives insist that artists and venues freely make their own choices. On the other, plaintiffs have shown evidence suggesting those choices may be heavily influenced—if not constrained—by the company’s reach across promotion, venues, and ticketing.

With the defense case now underway, the ultimate question for the jury is becoming clearer: is Live Nation simply the most successful player in a competitive market, or has it built a system that tilts the playing field in its favor?