A federal appeals court ruling is being invoked by both sides in the Live Nation–Ticketmaster antitrust case, as state attorneys general and the concert giant dispute whether the decision supports the monopoly verdict.
The states pointed to a recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Cumulus Media New Holdings v. The Nielsen Co. (US), to bolster their claim that Live Nation unlawfully required artists to purchase its promotion services in order to perform at its venues. In that case, the court found that Nielsen’s requirement to buy national market data as a condition of purchasing local market data could constitute an illegal tying arrangement.
The legal clash comes ahead of a Friday (July 31) hearing before Judge Arun Subramanian, who will consider Live Nation’s motions to overturn the antitrust verdict or grant a new trial.
In a letter to the court, the states argued that the Cumulus ruling proves a tying policy does not have to be express, and that ongoing enforcement of such a policy is sufficient to establish coercion.
“A policy conditioning the purchase of one product on the purchase of another need not be express and that ongoing enforcement of the policy is sufficient to constitute coercion.”
Live Nation, in its reply, maintained that the Cumulus decision does not demonstrate that any artist was coerced into buying an unwanted product. The company asserted that artists who wanted to play its venues also wanted its promotion services, and that there is no evidence of harm to competition.
“There is no evidence of an ‘unwanted’ product here, nor even that any artist unwillingly purchased promotion services from Live Nation.”
