Live Nation is doubling down on its effort to overturn the blockbuster antitrust verdict against the company, filing a sweeping new motion arguing plaintiffs failed to prove virtually every major element of their monopoly case against the concert giant and its ticketing arm, Ticketmaster.

The latest filing — a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) — comes the same day Live Nation separately asked the court for an entirely new trial, arguing the jury was improperly influenced by inflammatory evidence, including the now-infamous internal “robbing them blind baby” Slack message tied to parking and VIP fees.

In this newest motion, Live Nation takes a broader approach, arguing plaintiffs simply never proved the legal foundations of their monopolization claims involving amphitheaters, concert promotion, and primary ticketing.

At the heart of the filing is Live Nation’s claim that the government and state attorneys general failed to show any actual anticompetitive harm in the markets they defined during trial.

“It was anecdotal messages suggesting that Live Nation had increased prices to fans for things like parking, VIP tickets, or lawn chairs,” the company wrote, arguing that such evidence had nothing to do with the alleged antitrust markets involving artists and venues.

The motion repeatedly argues plaintiffs improperly focused on consumer frustration and fan fees rather than proving harm to the actual “relevant markets” at issue in the case. According to Live Nation, plaintiffs never established that artists, promoters, or venues paid higher prices, received worse services, or had fewer options because of the company’s conduct.

A major portion of the filing attacks plaintiffs’ definition of the “large amphitheater” market — one of the central pillars of the government’s case.

Live Nation argues plaintiffs artificially carved out a narrow category of amphitheaters with capacities above 8,000 seats while ignoring evidence that artists routinely substitute arenas, stadiums, clubs, and other venue types depending on routing, pricing, and logistics.

“The evidence at trial did not come close to supporting Plaintiffs’ theory,” the company wrote.

The filing points to testimony from agents, venue executives, and economists showing artists regularly move between amphitheaters and arenas on the same tours, undermining the argument that amphitheaters function as a unique antitrust market.

Live Nation also argues plaintiffs failed to prove the company unlawfully tied promotion services to access at its amphitheaters. The company says there was no evidence artists were ever forced to use Live Nation as a promoter against their will.

“The only artist whose testimony was presented at trial unequivocally stated he was not ‘coerced in any way to use Live Nation,’” the filing says.

According to the motion, plaintiffs attempted to transform Live Nation’s longstanding policy of not renting its amphitheaters to rival promoters into an unlawful tying arrangement, despite failing to show any artist actually accepted unfavorable deals or lacked alternative promoter options.

The filing further argues the tying claims are barred by the statute of limitations because the challenged amphitheater policies predated May 2020 and had remained “fundamentally unchanged” for years.

Live Nation also attacks plaintiffs’ primary ticketing market definitions, arguing the government improperly “gerrymandered” the market to inflate Ticketmaster’s market share from below 50% to the 86% figure repeatedly cited during trial.

According to the motion, plaintiffs excluded hundreds of smaller venues, sports venues, and other ticketing categories in order to construct a narrower “major concert venue” market that does not actually exist in the real world.

The company argues plaintiffs’ own expert admitted so-called “major concert venues” did not pay higher ticketing prices or receive worse terms than other venues — undercutting the claim they represented a uniquely vulnerable customer segment.

Live Nation further claims plaintiffs failed to show any measurable anticompetitive effects in primary ticketing.

The filing says plaintiffs offered no evidence that Ticketmaster’s conduct increased prices to venues, reduced output, or harmed quality. In fact, the company argues ticket output has increased substantially in recent years.

“Plaintiffs’ case is about allegedly anticompetitive conduct that did nothing to increase price, reduce output, or lower quality in the relevant markets,” the motion states.

Live Nation also dismisses plaintiffs’ allegations of retaliation and concert withholding against venues that switched from Ticketmaster to rivals like SeatGeek and AXS.

While plaintiffs portrayed the conduct as coercive, Live Nation argues the evidence showed only a handful of isolated incidents over nearly a decade, including disputes involving Barclays Center, Xcel Energy Center, and the Jonas Brothers tour.

Even if some venues received fewer Live Nation-promoted concerts after switching ticketing providers, the company says that merely reflects lawful “self-preferencing,” not illegal monopolization.

The filing represents Live Nation’s most comprehensive attempt yet to dismantle the jury’s verdict piece by piece. Combined with last week’s motion seeking a new trial, the company is now attacking both the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the fairness of the proceedings themselves.

The court has not yet ruled on either motion.