Incredibly, the United States Department of Justice is making use of our nation’s Anti-Trust Act to sue Live Nation-Ticketmaster.

In a press conference held today, in Washington D.C., Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the lawsuit. Garland detailed instances of monopolization documented by competent lawyers and associates who were also present in the room, today. It is evident that the Attorney General seeks to break the monopoly.

This very needed forward footstep arrives on the heels of an already big stride in my step. After nearly 5 years of bringing up the idea that human rights protections are desperately needed in the music industry, last week I received a nice letter from none other than the President of United States of America. President Joe Biden had indeed received a copy of my written work, “TWENTY-SEVEN: Human Rights In The Music Industry”. I should tell you that the book is scheduled to be officially available for sale, in select stores as well as here on this website, on the World Day of Music, 21 June, 2024.

Book II of “TWENTY-SEVEN: Human Rights In The Music Industry” contains a chapter entitled Taylor Swift, Pearl Jam and The Anti-Trust Act. This chapter is inspired by the hard work of Taylor Swift to protect her work, and using her fame to do so, somewhat unabashedly, across the entire music industry. In 2023, I was also in attendance at the January 24^th Senate Judicial Hearing, Taylor Swift vs. Ticketmaster, which was also held at the nation’s capital.

That same chapter is as well inspired by the incredible feat, back in 1994, attempted by Jeff Ament and Stone Gossard, members of the Grammy-awarded rock band Pearl Jam. They, too, took matters of monopolies surrounding live music performances to our national government. They, too, cited instances of monopolization in live music performance venues which their band could not escape from while also being able to meet the requests of an international fanbase, as well as maintain their own safety on the road. In fact, Pearl Jam‘s frontman, Eddie Vedder, became quite famous for taking an outspoken approach while dealing head-on with monopolies forming in the music industry. They were not, in the end, satisfied with the outcome. In fact, no one was.

It has taken about one hundred years to arrive at this point. It has taken not just one, but hundreds of artists in music who have demanded resolution. It even has required people such as myself who adore and worship music, to speak out in support.

The Department of Justice website makes available for download a copy of the official complaint. The heading of the complaint reads, “United States District Court, Southern District of New York,” and so gives one an idea of where the needed spark came from, in the end. The complaint is more than one hundred pages yet it covers the breadth of the first outlook on this entire matter. If this is a topic that your industry depends upon, it’s well worth spending some time looking at it.

To read the entire text, please go to www.justice.gov.

To provide an idea, this is extracted from the complaint:

POINT 6:

As this Complaint describes in detail, through a self-reinforcing “flywheel” that Live Nation-Ticketmaster created to connect their multiple interconnected businesses and interests, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have engaged in numerous forms of anticompetitive conduct. That anticompetitive conduct includes the following:

a. Relationship with Oak View Group. Live Nation-Ticketmaster exploits its longtime relationship with Oak View Group, a potential competitor-turned-partner that has described itself as a “hammer” and “protect[or]” for Live Nation… on another occasion, Live Nation stated, “let’s make sure we don’t let [the artist agency] now start playing us off.”

b. Retaliating Against Potential Entrants. Live Nation-Ticketmaster successfully threatened financial retaliation against a firm unless it stopped one of its subsidiaries from competing to gain a foothold in the U.S. concert promotions market.

c. Acquiring Competitors and Competitive Threats. Live Nation-Ticketmaster strategically acquired a number of smaller and regional promoters that it had internally identified as threats. This has undermined competition and impacted artist compensation.

d. Threatening and Retaliating Against Venues that Work with Rivals. Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s power in concert promotions means that every live concert venue knows choosing another promoter or ticketer comes with a risk of drawing an adverse reaction from Live Nation-Ticketmaster that would result in losing concerts, revenue, and fans.

e. Locking Out Competition with Exclusionary Contracts. Live Nation-Ticketmaster locks concert venues into long-term exclusive contracts so that venues cannot consider or choose rival ticketers or switch to better, more, or cost-effective ticketing technology. These contracts allow Live Nation-Ticketmaster to reduce competitive pressure to improve its own ticketing technology and customer service.

f. Blocking Venues from Using Multiple Ticketers. Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s conduct and exclusive contracts prevent new and different promotions and Case 1:24-cv-03973 Document 1 Filed 05/23/24 Page 8 of 128 5 ticketing competitors and business models from emerging. They block venues from being able to use multiple ticketers, who would compete by offering the best mix of prices, fees, quality, and innovation to fans.

g. Restricting Artists’ Access to Venues. Live Nation-Ticketmaster has increasingly gained control of key venues, including amphitheaters, through acquisitions, partnerships, and agreements. Live Nation-Ticketmaster restricts artists' use of those venues unless those artists also agree to use their promotion services.

h. Acquiring Competitors and Competitive Threats. Live Nation-Ticketmaster strategically acquired a number of smaller and regional promoters that it had internally identified as threats. This has undermined competition and impacted artist compensation.