That’s it?!?

The most hyped on-the-stand interrogation in the live music history just went down and it was kind of a dud. Star attorney Jeffrey Kessler did his best to goad, anger and trap Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino into admitting that, despite years of denials, that Live Nation really was a monopoly and malevolent force in the concert business. But Rapino didnt take the bait, essentially winning the round.

That’s according to new reports of reporters who covered the trial for the New York Times and the Hollywood Reporter as well as the tweets of Matthew Lee at Inner City Press, which has been doggedly covering the trial, capturing much of the back and forth on his Twitter account.

Going into Thursday, expectations were sky high for Kessler, a veteran litigator known for his courtroom theatrics and searing cross examination skills, and low for Rapino, the 60-year-old Canadian chief-executive who has grown Live Nation into a $25 billion a year business.

On the company’s most explosive scandal as of late — the “Robbing them Blind” Slack messages from Hell — Rapino called the messages disgusting and said that his attorneys at Latham Watkins had not told him about the messages until last week and that he hasn’t made a decision about terminating one of the messages authors (the other author left the company in recent months).

Surprisingly, Rapino spent less than a full day on the stand, fielding aggressive questioning from Kessler that often felt pointed, but never detrimental. Rapino was able to wave off most attacks, either pointing out that Kessler was misapplying data, misreading financials or seeking granular information that Rapino couldn’t recall.

Kessler, who took the case over less than two weeks ago, often seemed both tense and ill-prepared for the make-or-break interview. Rapino regularly pushed back on questions about market share, pricing and internal company data. When presented with a chart suggesting Ticketmaster controlled 75 percent of global ticketing revenue, Rapino shot back: “No, you’re reading it backwards. I’m saying we have 25 percent.”

At the heart of the case is whether Live Nation has used its scale—spanning ticketing, promotion, venues and sponsorships—to create an anticompetitive “moat” around its business. Rapino rejected that characterization, instead portraying the company as an innovator that helped consolidate a once-fragmented industry.

“I’m very proud that we took this live industry that was fragmented 21 years ago and put it together,” he said, adding more broadly, “The idea of business in general is that you want to build a better mousetrap than the other guy.”

Kessler repeatedly pressed Rapino on Live Nation’s use of long-term, exclusive ticketing contracts and whether the company’s contracts shut out competitors. Rapino insisted it was the venues who wanted restrictive deals, noting the longer the agreement, the more cash a venue could demand up front.

“It’s not my policy. It’s what the venue wants,” he said, adding elsewhere, “I don’t tell the billionaire what to do with his venue. He tells me.”

Rapino was also questioned about the Oak View Group, which the lawsuit said often serves as Live Nation’s "pimp" "hammer" and "protector." Rapino downplayed the significance of the relationship, even as he acknowledged the companies had entered into a 10-year agreement.

Another major line of questioning focused on pricing and ancillary revenue at Live Nation venues. Kessler highlighted a policy requiring amphitheater patrons to rent lawn chairs—rather than bring their own—a move that generated $7 million in revenue across 12 venues. Rapino defended the practice, saying, “It became a safety issue,” and rejected the notion that pricing was excessive, arguing that overall admission costs for lawn seating remain low.

Beyond pricing, Rapino was pressed on longstanding allegations that Live Nation retaliates against venues that choose not to use Ticketmaster. Those claims have been central to the case, including testimony from former Barclays Center executive John Abbamondi who secretly recorded a phone call with Rapino after the Brooklyn arena switched ticketing providers.

Asked directly about the accusations, Rapino dismissed them. “Yeah, we don’t do that,” he said.

It would “be a tough time to deliver tickets or concerts with a new competitor in town, regardless of ticketing,” he said, mentioning the opening of the UBS Bank Arena in 2021. Abbamondi previously testified that he interpreted the comment as a threat that Live Nation would steer shows away from the venue. Rapino said there was “zero” chance the remark was meant as a threat.

Did Rapino remember the disastrous onsale for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour?

“Oh, yeah,” Rapino said when asked about it, blaming the breakdown on a “cyber attack” while agreeing that Ticketmaster’s infrastructure was “held together by duct tape” and in need of upgrades.

Another point of scrutiny was Live Nation’s policies governing direct-to-fan ticket sales. Rapino was asked about a shift away from allowing artists to sell a portion of tickets—typically around eight percent—directly to fan clubs without going through Ticketmaster. Under the revised approach, those transactions must still run through the company’s system.

He was also asked about a specific case involving Adele, who reportedly offered to cover ticketing fees if she could sell tickets directly to fans. Rapino rejected the framing of that decision, saying: “We would never say no to Adele. We said no to the ticketing company trying to get free tickets.”

Throughout his testimony, Rapino sought to portray Live Nation as a company operating in a competitive marketplace, not a monopoly. He described its scale—tens of thousands of shows annually, hundreds of venues globally, and billions in revenue—as the result of long-term investment and execution rather than anticompetitive conduct.

Still, the states pressing the case argue that very scale has allowed Live Nation to function as a self-reinforcing “flywheel,” using its dominance in one area of the business to strengthen another, ultimately driving up prices for fans.

At several points, Rapino also resisted broader claims about Live Nation’s financial performance, including suggestions that the company had engineered revenue growth at its venues. When pressed on projections for strong profits at outdoor venues in 2024, he said those expectations ultimately fell short due to a “collapse in revenue” late in the year.

“That’s why Tom See’s no longer here,” Rapino said, referring to the former president of Live Nation U.S. Venues.

As the trial continues without the Justice Department, the case now hinges on whether the states can prove that Live Nation’s business practices—across ticketing, promotion and venues—cross the line from market leadership into illegal monopolization. Rapino’s testimony made clear the company intends to fight that characterization at every turn. The question is whether Kessler has much ammo left to fire at the company to make its point?