Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reaction to verdict & damages

  • Many find the jury’s estimate of $1.72 overcharge per ticket implausibly low compared to typical fees adding tens of dollars.
  • Strong cynicism about class actions: expectation that lawyers will keep most of the money and consumers get token refunds or coupons.
  • Widespread doubt that the verdict will materially restore competition or meaningfully lower prices.

Government, antitrust, and federalism

  • Several note that states carrying the case forward shows the value of state-level enforcement when the federal government drops or settles cases.
  • Debates over why the earlier federal case was abandoned: some blame political corruption and campaign donations; others point to structural issues with a politicized Department of Justice.
  • Comparisons to European systems where prosecutors are less tied to the executive and courts are more insulated from political swings.

Fees, junk charges, and consumer experience

  • Broad frustration with “service” and “convenience” fees across tickets, movies, restaurants, and even tax payments.
  • Some states have moved against junk fees; others see industry pushback weakening these efforts.
  • Users recount paying fees equal to or larger than the face value of tickets, sometimes even at box offices.

Scalpers, resale, and vertical integration

  • Concern that combining primary sales and “verified” resale under one corporate umbrella creates perverse incentives to tolerate or enable scalping and multiple resales.
  • Disagreement on how much Ticketmaster actually dominates secondary markets, with others highlighting StubHub/SeatGeek/Vivid.
  • Some see scalpers as harmful rent-seekers; others frame them as risk-bearing intermediaries ensuring sellouts.

Proposed reforms to ticketing

  • Ideas include: non‑transferable tickets tied to ID; lotteries; Dutch auctions; resale price caps; limiting transfers to short windows; or banning secondary markets altogether.
  • Counterarguments stress legitimate needs for transfer (gifts, illness, scheduling changes) and fear of over-restricting consumers.
  • Some argue auctions and dynamic pricing mainly benefit the wealthy; others say artists/venues should be free to maximize revenue.

Market structure and Live Nation’s moat

  • Posters attribute dominance to exclusive multi‑year venue contracts, venue ownership, vertical integration, and decades of weak antitrust enforcement.
  • Calls range from “break them up” to skepticism that any remedy will significantly change pricing given artist and venue incentives.

Historical context

  • Several recall 1990s attempts by major bands to challenge Ticketmaster and view today’s verdict as extremely delayed accountability.