Antitrust Showdown: Internal Turmoil Threatens Trump DOJ’s Stance on Live Nation-Ticketmaster

Antitrust Showdown: Internal Turmoil Threatens Trump DOJ’s Stance on Live Nation-Ticketmaster

The stage is set for one of the year’s most anticipated anti-monopoly trials, pitting the U.S. Department of Justice against the entertainment behemoth Live Nation-Ticketmaster. Yet, just weeks before jury selection, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division finds itself in a state of profound upheaval, raising critical questions about its commitment to this high-stakes legal battle. Recent leadership changes and allegations of political interference cast a long shadow over the proceedings, leaving many to wonder if the Trump administration’s DOJ will truly see this fight through.

A Division in Disarray: Leadership Exodus and Political Shadows

The sudden departure of Antitrust Division chief Gail Slater in mid-February, announced via her personal X account, was a dramatic turn of events, though not entirely unforeseen by those monitoring the agency. For months, whispers of deep-seated tensions between Slater’s team and DOJ leadership, coupled with President Donald Trump’s known penchant for personal dealmaking, had fueled speculation about the division’s true autonomy.

The internal strife became public months earlier when two of Slater’s top deputies were dismissed for alleged “insubordination.” One former deputy later recounted resisting a wireless networking deal between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks, a deal reportedly championed by “MAGA-In-Name-Only” lobbyists and certain DOJ officials. The week before Slater’s own exit, a third deputy also resigned, further signaling a crisis within the division.

Adding another layer of scrutiny to these departures is the reported connection of Mike Davis, a lobbyist close to Trump involved in the HPE-Juniper deal, to Live Nation. While Live Nation has not commented on this alleged link, the implications are stark. As one former DOJ official, speaking anonymously, observed, “What was happening implicitly before is now explicit. A lot of very powerful corporations have figured out that they can just push through fantasy deals and fantasy outcomes in ways that were impossible before, and all they have to do is pay.”

The Live Nation-Ticketmaster Monopoly: Allegations and Defense

The core of the lawsuit, initiated by the DOJ and 40 state attorneys general in May 2024, aims to dismantle Live Nation-Ticketmaster. Prosecutors allege that the company has engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive practices, effectively locking artists and venues into its ecosystem. By allegedly tying together various facets of its business, employing exclusionary contracts, and leveraging threats of “financial retaliation” to stifle emerging competitors, Live Nation-Ticketmaster is accused of artificially inflating ticket prices for consumers.

Live Nation, for its part, has vehemently denied these claims, stating in a blog post at the time of the lawsuit’s filing that the legal action “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices.” The company maintains that market dynamics, not monopolistic practices, dictate pricing.

Uncertainty Looms as Trial Nears

With jury selection slated for March 2nd, the question of the DOJ’s continued leadership in the case hangs heavy. Should the agency opt to settle or withdraw from the trial, the implications would be significant. However, the coalition of 40 state attorneys general who joined the initial lawsuit are poised to press on. “We look forward to going to trial on March 2 against Live Nation,” affirmed California’s top antitrust enforcer, Paula Blizzard, on the day of Slater’s announcement. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has also signaled his intent to proceed.

Despite the turmoil, there’s a possibility the DOJ will remain a lead plaintiff. Omeed Assefi, interim head of the Antitrust Division, has reportedly pledged to uphold Slater’s agenda. Sources like MLex and Capitol Forum indicate Assefi believes the case is strong and favors trial. Global Competition Review further reported his stern message to staff, encouraging them to reflect on his history of criminal antitrust enforcement: “Ask them how I feel about settling cases in lieu of trial… Ask them how I feel about accepting half measures and mere monetary penalties in lieu of seeking justice.”

Yet, the irony is not lost on observers: Gail Slater herself was renowned as a rigorous antitrust enforcer, and reports suggest her own agenda was ultimately overridden. This history underscores the precarious position of the division.

The Steadfast Role of State Attorneys General

In the face of federal uncertainty, the resolve of the state attorneys general becomes paramount. Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley, former Wisconsin antitrust chief and chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Antitrust Task Force, notes that states are inherently prepared for shifts in their trial partners. “The states are no stranger to realpolitik,” she stated, emphasizing their capacity to independently pursue justice.

As the March 2nd deadline approaches, the future of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster antitrust case remains a compelling narrative of corporate power, government oversight, and the enduring quest for consumer protection, now complicated by the turbulent currents within the very agency tasked with upholding fair competition.

For more details, visit our website.

Source: Link