“We’ve come 90% of the way -- the only outstanding question is when the discovery will actually kick off,” judge explained at a Thursday hearing

A New York federal judge signaled Thursday that the remedies phase in the blockbuster antitrust case against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster may not begin until early 2027, setting up another potentially lengthy courtroom battle over whether the live entertainment giant should ultimately be broken apart following last month’s landmark jury verdict.

During a wide-ranging scheduling conference in the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian repeatedly questioned attorneys for both sides about how quickly the case could move toward a remedies hearing and whether additional discovery should begin immediately or wait until the court resolves a series of post-trial motions expected later this summer.

“We’ve come 90% of the way,” Subramanian said during Thursday’s hearing. “The only outstanding question is when the discovery will actually kick off.”

The hearing marked the first major public proceeding since Subramanian unanimously found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable for antitrust violations last month, siding with a coalition of 33 states and the District of Columbia that accused the company of monopolizing multiple sectors of the live entertainment business.

The upcoming remedies phase — which will be decided by Subramanian rather than a jury — could determine whether Live Nation is forced to divest Ticketmaster, sell amphitheater assets or accept sweeping operational restrictions governing ticketing, venue management and concert promotion.

CLICK HERE TO READ: Judge Likely To Put Off Live Nation-Ticketmaster "Breakup" Decision Til 2027

The latest episode of the Decibel & Docket Podcast opens with a discussion about the viral phrase “Blue Dot Fever,” coined to describe what happens when concerts fail to sell enough tickets and unsold seats flood ticket maps with blue dots on platforms like Ticketmaster. Dave and Michael break down the growing crisis in live entertainment as major artists including Post Malone and Jelly Roll pull back stadium tour dates amid soft ticket sales, rising production costs, and growing consumer frustration over dynamic pricing.

The episode then pivots into one of the strangest and most disturbing legal stories currently unfolding online: the lawsuit involving controversial livestream personality Clavicular. Dave and Michael unpack the civil allegations against the influencer, the legal exposure facing livestream creators, and what the case could mean for platforms like Kick and Twitch as livestream culture increasingly collides with real-world legal consequences.

The episode wraps biggest highlights is an exclusive interview with Thomas Cussen of Ineffable Music about a groundbreaking AI music copyright controversy involving reggae artist Stick Figure. Thomas explains how an AI-generated remix of the song “Angels Above Me” exploded across TikTok, Spotify, and streaming platforms without proper attribution or compensation to the original creators.

Late last year, a Klimt sold for the highest price ever paid for modern art at auction.

An outlier sure, but it wasn't a fluke. U.S. auction sales grew 23.1% in 2025. The $1-5mm segment even grew 40.8% YoY.

Meanwhile, Apollo’s chief economist Torsten Slock said to expect ‘zero in return in the S&P 500 over the coming decade.’

So, that's where it gets interesting.

Each environment is unique, but after dot-com, post war and contemporary art grew about 24% annually for a decade. After 2008, about 11% for 12 years.

It’s also had near-zero correlation with the S&P 500 since ‘95.*

Now, Masterworks lets you invest in shares of artworks featuring legends like Banksy, Basquiat, and Picasso.

Shares can sell quickly, but my subscribers can skip the waitlist:

Skip the waitlist

^{*Investing involves risk. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. See important Reg A disclosures at masterworks.com/cd.}

One brand built 30+ landing pages through Viktor without a single developer.

Each page mapped to a specific ad group. All deployed within hours. Viktor wrote the code and shipped every one from a Slack message.

That same team has Viktor monitoring ad accounts across the portfolio and posting performance briefs before the day starts. One colleague. Always on. Across every account.

Start free. $100 in credits →

Tracking the the most in-demand tickets in North America for the Weekend of May 1-3.

The Sizzlin’ Sales chart is compiled using data from Ticketdata.com and is ranked by highest get-in-the-door price — that’s the price of the cheapest ticket to the concert — on the secondary ticketing market.

For years, the ticket resale industry has been trying to pull off one of the most ambitious rebrands in modern entertainment: convincing the public to stop calling them scalpers.

“Ticket reseller,” or “ticket broker” is now the preferred vernacular. Opponents of the word “scalper” argue term is outdated, unfair, and increasingly, offensive. Some brokers and advocates now claim the word itself carries racist connotations tied to violence against Native Americans and should be retired altogether.

At first glance, the argument sounds persuasive. America has spent the last decade reevaluating language once considered harmless but later understood to carry ugly historical baggage. Sports teams renamed themselves. Mascots disappeared. Corporate brands changed logos and slogans. Words matter more than they used to, or at least we are more willing to interrogate them.

And to be fair, the history of the word “scalp” is undeniably brutal.

During the colonial era and well into the American frontier period, scalping referred literally to the removal of a person’s scalp, often after battle or murder. Colonial governments and militias at various points established bounty systems that paid rewards for Native American scalps, turning human body parts into receipts for cash payments. Historians still debate the extent to which European settlers adopted or exaggerated the practice, but there is no debate that the term became deeply associated in American culture with barbarism, but attributed to and committed against indigenous people.

Which is why the modern argument surrounding “ticket scalping” initially feels plausible. If the root word evokes racialized violence, shouldn’t the modern business term be reconsidered too?

Sorry to break it to the resale industry, but the actual history of “ticket scalping” doesn’t really support that conclusion.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests the phrase emerged not from anti-Native American imagery, but from 19th century railroad speculation.

CLICK HERE TO READ: The Term 'Scalping' Is Rooted in the Railroads, Not Native American Culture