Live Nation is asking a federal judge to overturn—or substantially narrow—the antitrust verdict against the concert giant, arguing that state attorneys general persuaded jurors with a sweeping narrative about the company’s power but failed to produce the economic and transactional evidence needed to prove their claims.

In an 11-page letter filed Aug. 4, attorneys for Live Nation and Ticketmaster seized on questions raised by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian during a July 31 hearing on the companies’ post-trial motions. The filing supplements Live Nation’s request for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 and its alternative request for a new trial under Rule 59.

A jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable for antitrust violations in May following a six-week trial in Manhattan. The state plaintiffs are now seeking structural remedies that could include separating Live Nation from Ticketmaster and forcing the company to surrender control of some amphitheaters.

Before the case reaches that stage, however, Subramanian must decide whether the verdict is legally supported by the evidence presented at trial. Live Nation’s latest filing argues that it is not.

Did the states prove an amphitheater market?

One of the most consequential issues concerns the states’ contention that large amphitheaters constitute a distinct antitrust market dominated by Live Nation.

To establish that market, the states needed to demonstrate that artists would not readily switch to arenas, stadiums or other venues if the cost of playing amphitheaters increased or the financial terms worsened.

The states relied partly on research by economist Nicholas Hill showing that artists who stage tours at large amphitheaters frequently return to amphitheaters for their next summer tour. Live Nation argues that finding merely demonstrates repeat usage—it does not show how artists would respond to a meaningful price increase.

Hill had attempted to answer that question through a hypothetical monopolist test, but Subramanian excluded the analysis before trial as unreliable. The judge concluded that Hill’s method of measuring diversion did not adequately predict how artists would react to higher prices or worse terms.

Live Nation also argues that the states never established how many artists are effectively captive to amphitheaters or whether that group is large enough to make a price increase profitable.

The verdict also found that Live Nation unlawfully maintained its amphitheater monopoly through acquisitions, leases and exclusive booking agreements.

Hill’s expert report asserted that Live Nation gained control over 16 major amphitheaters between 2015 and 2024. Live Nation’s attorneys say that figure obscures important distinctions: Two arrangements involved ownership acquisitions, two involved leases, one involved a management agreement and 11 were booking deals.

Only five of those arrangements allegedly occurred during or after 2020—one management agreement, one lease and three booking agreements.

Live Nation argues that the states failed to identify the precise terms of those transactions, establish when several of them were completed or prove that each venue met the states’ definition of a large amphitheater. In some instances, the company says, the trial record does not establish whether Live Nation owned, leased, managed or merely booked the venue.

The booking agreements themselves were not entered into evidence, and Hill acknowledged that he had not reviewed them. Live Nation contends that this matters because an exclusive booking agreement does not necessarily give the company total control of a venue. Some agreements contain carve-outs permitting third-party promoters or venue owners to book their own shows.

The company also says acquisitions completed before 2020 fall outside the four-year statute of limitations. The states cannot revive those transactions, Live Nation argues, by characterizing them as components of a continuing acquisition strategy.

The states’ tying claim centers on Live Nation’s policy of generally declining to rent its amphitheaters to competing promoters. Under the states’ theory, artists seeking access to those venues were effectively required to hire Live Nation to promote their shows.

Live Nation says the states failed to identify a single instance in which an artist asked to play a company amphitheater with another promoter, was denied access and then reluctantly hired Live Nation.

No artist testified that the policy forced that decision. The states also did not call veteran promoter Louis Messina, whose earlier testimony was cited by Subramanian at summary judgment as possible evidence that Live Nation’s policy impeded competing promoters.

Live Nation argues that artists may voluntarily hire the venue owner as promoter because an integrated agreement provides access to additional revenue streams and can result in a more lucrative deal. The existence of demand for independent promoters, it says, does not establish that artists chose Live Nation unwillingly.

The company also accuses the states of introducing a new market theory after trial by referring during the July hearing to a market for large amphitheater tours, particularly national tours. Live Nation says that market was never defined, analyzed or presented to the jury.

Live Nation is mounting a similar attack on the states’ definition of the primary-ticketing market.

The states focused on “major concert venues,” primarily arenas and amphitheaters with at least 8,000 seats that host 10 or more concerts annually. Live Nation argues those parameters were selected to maximize Ticketmaster’s market share, even though Ticketmaster, AXS and SeatGeek all compete to serve arenas, amphitheaters and stadiums.

Defense economist Dennis Carlton testified that Ticketmaster’s share falls to approximately 48% if the calculation includes venues with at least 8,000 seats that host one or more concerts. Adding stadiums lowers its share to approximately 40%.

Those figures could make it substantially more difficult for the states to prove monopoly power.

Live Nation argues that the 10-concert threshold, exclusion of stadiums and decision to count concert tickets rather than all tickets sold at a venue artificially transformed a competitive market into one dominated by Ticketmaster.

The company also contends that the states failed to show Ticketmaster forced venues to accept exclusive contracts.

Twenty-three venue witnesses testified at trial, Live Nation notes, but none said they wanted a nonexclusive ticketing deal and were compelled to accept exclusivity. Instead, the defense says, venues frequently prefer long-term exclusive agreements because ticketing companies compete by offering technology, financial guarantees and large upfront payments.

That financial structure is also central to Live Nation’s attack on the states’ damages expert, Rosa Abrantes-Metz.

Abrantes-Metz treated Ticketmaster’s upfront payments to venues as fixed costs that should not reduce the effective price Ticketmaster paid for ticketing rights. Live Nation argues those payments and Ticketmaster’s share of service fees are negotiated together. Ticketmaster determines whether its anticipated share of future fees will recover the upfront payment, cover its costs and generate an acceptable profit.

Failing to account for that relationship, the company says, renders Abrantes-Metz’s analysis unreliable.

Live Nation also renewed its argument that inflammatory internal Slack messages—including discussions about premium parking and “robbing” fans—unfairly influenced jurors, even though some claims connected to that evidence did not reach the verdict.

The company is asking Subramanian to consider whether those messages prejudiced the jury’s evaluation of the surviving claims and warrant a new trial.

The filing does not mean the verdict will be overturned. It represents Live Nation’s interpretation of a heavily disputed trial record, and the states will continue to argue that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the jury’s findings.

Still, the specificity of Subramanian’s questions has given Live Nation an opening to attack the verdict claim by claim. His eventual decision will determine whether the case proceeds to a potentially historic remedies trial—or whether some of the most serious findings against Live Nation and Ticketmaster are stripped away before that process begins.