With the jury phase of the Justice Department's antitrust case now over, Live Nation is making one final push to erase the landmark verdict that found the company liable for monopolizing portions of the live entertainment industry.

In two reply briefs filed Wednesday, Live Nation asked Judge Arun Subramanian to either toss the jury's verdict or, failing that, order an entirely new trial.

The filings do not introduce new evidence. Instead, they synthesize nearly every major dispute that has shaped the case since the Justice Department and 40 state and district attorneys general sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May 2024.

The briefs also reveal how the company intends to position the case for what many expect will ultimately become an appeal.

When the DOJ first filed suit, it alleged Live Nation maintained monopolies through a combination of exclusive ticketing agreements, retaliation against venues considering rival ticketing platforms, acquisitions of competitors and the integration of its concert promotion, venue ownership and ticketing businesses.

As the litigation progressed, however, many of those theories narrowed.

Judge Subramanian significantly limited portions of the government's expert testimony before trial, most notably excluding parts of economist Dr. David Hill's hypothetical monopolist test used to define the large amphitheater market. Throughout trial, both sides battled over what constituted the proper relevant markets, whether Live Nation's conduct actually harmed competition and whether exclusive contracts reflected coercion or ordinary business negotiations.

The jury ultimately sided with the government, finding Live Nation liable on both its ticketing and amphitheater monopolization claims.

Now Live Nation argues that verdict cannot legally stand.

The Rule 50 motion repeatedly argues the government simply failed to produce legally sufficient evidence on nearly every required element of monopolization.

Across the filing, variations of the phrase "no proof" appear again and again, with its most significant argument concerning antitrust injury.

Rather than disputing that Live Nation is large or influential, the company argues plaintiffs never demonstrated the hallmark effects of monopoly power—increased prices, reduced output or diminished quality for the customers that matter under antitrust law.

The reply repeatedly notes that artists actually earned more playing Live Nation amphitheaters while major concert venues allegedly paid declining ticketing prices during the relevant period.

That argument has become increasingly central to Live Nation's defense since trial began.

The Rule 59 motion for a new trial largely revisits disputes that frequently interrupted testimony before the jury.

Among the biggest issues:

Evidence about fan fees

Throughout trial, the government introduced evidence involving parking prices, lawn chair rentals and ticket fees paid by fans—including comparisons to Europe.

Live Nation argues none of those prices belonged in the case because the relevant customers under the government's own market definitions were artists and venues—not concertgoers. The company contends the evidence unfairly encouraged jurors to equate unpopular consumer fees with proof of monopoly power.

That argument also echoes one of the defense's recurring themes during trial—that public frustration with Ticketmaster should not substitute for proof of antitrust violations.

The "Robbing Them Blind" emails

Perhaps no exhibit received more public attention than internal emails discussing ancillary revenue under the phrase "robbing them blind."

The new filing argues those documents became improperly prejudicial because plaintiffs relied on them as evidence of monopoly despite relating to ancillary revenue paid by fans rather than prices charged within the alleged antitrust markets.

Those emails became one of the defining moments of the government's presentation during trial.

Threats and retaliation

Much of the government's case rested on allegations that venues feared losing concerts if they abandoned Ticketmaster.

Live Nation now argues that, once hearsay testimony and pre-limitations evidence are removed, plaintiffs effectively proved only a single qualifying incident—the Barclays Center dispute from 2021.

The company also argues the jury received insufficient legal guidance explaining what actually constitutes unlawful threats or retaliation under antitrust law.

The filings also revive one of the trial's most technical disputes: economist Rosa Abrantes-Metz's damages model.

Live Nation again argues her methodology improperly ignored substantial upfront payments made under ticketing contracts, relying instead on a "retained amount" calculation that allegedly overstated overcharges.

The company further contends the model improperly treated AXS as a comparable competitor throughout the entire damages period despite testimony suggesting AXS did not achieve comparable product quality until years later.

Those arguments closely mirror Live Nation's earlier motions seeking to exclude portions of her testimony before the jury ever deliberated.

Legally, neither filing asks Judge Subramanian to revisit factual disagreements simply because Live Nation lost.

Instead, the Rule 50 motion argues the verdict lacks legally sufficient evidence, while the Rule 59 motion contends evidentiary errors and flawed jury instructions produced an unfair trial even if sufficient evidence technically existed.

That distinction matters because it preserves multiple avenues for appellate review.

Should Judge Subramanian deny both motions—as many post-trial motions are—the arguments are already positioned for the Second Circuit.

Judge Subramanian must now decide whether the jury's findings can survive under federal antitrust law or whether Live Nation deserves either judgment as a matter of law or an entirely new trial.

Whatever the outcome, these filings likely represent the final substantive briefing before the case moves into the remedies phase—and potentially years of appeals.

In many ways, the briefs also underscore how the case has evolved since the DOJ announced it with promises to dismantle what it described as a monopoly over live music.

The jury viewed the evidence through a factual lens and sided with the government. Live Nation is now asking the judge to view the same record through a strictly legal one, arguing that regardless of how compelling the government's narrative may have been, it failed to prove the specific elements required under the Sherman Act. If Judge Subramanian rejects those arguments, they are almost certain to become the foundation of Live Nation's appeal.