A bipartisan op-ed argues the Ticketmaster monopoly ruling should be a starting point for federal and state action, as lawmakers scrutinize the DOJ settlement and consumer advocates press for open ticket transferability.

A bipartisan pair of former state attorneys general is urging lawmakers and state enforcers to treat the recent Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly verdict not as the end of the ticketing reform fight, but as a springboard for stronger consumer protections.

Writing in The Hill, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, and former Maine Attorney General Drew Ketterer, a Democrat, argued that the verdict gives states and Congress leverage to pursue reforms that go beyond damages or delayed court remedies. Their prescription includes passage of the TICKET Act, protections for consumers’ ability to transfer and resell tickets on the platform of their choice, and settlement terms that open the ticketing market to more competition.

The op-ed comes as the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case has entered a sprawling post-verdict phase, with state plaintiffs seeking remedies after a jury found the company liable for monopolization while the federal court separately reviews the Trump administration’s settlement with the company under the Tunney Act.

That settlement drama was the focus of a Monday bicameral forum led by Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, where lawmakers, state enforcers, independent venue operators, artists, and antitrust experts argued that the jury verdict should be followed by structural changes to Live Nation’s business rather than a narrow conduct settlement.

RELATED: Lawmakers, Witnesses Dissect “Corrupt” Live Nation Settlement at Hearing; Press for Breakup

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office remained in the case after DOJ agreed to settle, told the forum that behavioral remedies had proven inadequate and that the states would seek structural relief. TicketNews previously reported that Bonta said potential remedies could include divestiture of Ticketmaster, a broader breakup of Live Nation’s vertically integrated business, or separation of the company’s venue and artist-management operations.

The forum underscored a key point for ticketing policy: there is now visible appetite at the federal level not only for transparency legislation, but also for tougher scrutiny of antitrust settlements that leave dominant market structures intact.

The TICKET Act remains the most immediate legislative vehicle. The bill passed the House last year by a 409-15 vote and is now on the Senate calendar. It would require ticket sellers and resale marketplaces to display the total ticket price at the beginning of the purchasing process, prohibit speculative ticket sales by sellers who do not have possession of the tickets, require refunds for canceled or significantly postponed events, and give the Federal Trade Commission enforcement authority.

Cuccinelli and Ketterer argued that those transparency provisions are important, but insufficient. In their view, lawmakers and state plaintiffs should also address the structural question at the center of the Live Nation/Ticketmaster fight: whether consumers actually control the tickets they purchase, or whether the primary seller and event rights-holder can dictate where, when, and whether those tickets can be transferred or resold.

That question is an essential one for true consumer choice in ticketing and ticket resale. Ticketmaster’s SafeTix system, the company’s mobile-only rotating-barcode technology, has been promoted by the company as an anti-fraud tool, but the truth is that it has largely served the purpose of creating a walled garden – where rights holders and Ticketmaster have ultimate control over a ticket and its use after purchase.

The DOJ’s under President Biden illustrated this point in its initial amended complaint in the lawsuit that eventually led to the guitly verdict last month. It argued that the technology was designed to allow Ticketmaster protect its dominant primary-ticketing position, strengthen its resale position, and make it more difficult for fans to use rival resale platforms.

RELATED: Ticketmaster’s SafeTix System Takes Central Role in DOJ’s Monopoly Lawsuit

TicketNews has reported for years that dynamic barcodes and other restricted-transfer systems can effectively lock fans into the ticketing platform chosen by the original seller. Once a ticket is confined inside a proprietary app, consumers may be able to use, transfer, or resell it only under the rules set by that platform.

For consumer advocates, that makes transferability a core competition issue rather than a secondary feature of ticketing convenience. A ticket that cannot be freely transferred is less like property purchased by a fan and more like conditional access controlled by the seller, enabling the restriction of use, sale, resale, or transfer at their discretion.

That distinction is especially important as Live Nation has simultaneously supported resale price caps. The company has argued that caps would address fan frustration over high secondary-market prices, speculative listings, and bot-driven purchasing. Critics counter that resale caps, if imposed without equivalent limits on primary-market pricing, dynamic pricing, platinum pricing, holdbacks, and transfer restrictions, could eliminate resale competition while leaving Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s primary-market power intact.

That concern was also at the center of a January Senate Commerce hearing, where lawmakers pressed Live Nation over whether resale restrictions and price caps could leave fans with fewer options. As TicketNews reported then, a cap that limits what consumers can recover on resale, while leaving primary-market prices unrestricted, can box fans into a market controlled by the same company that sold them the ticket in the first place.

Consumer-choice groups have also argued that resale competition can benefit fans when tickets fall below face value. A 2025 report found that resale markets saved fans hundreds of millions of dollars in 2024, while polling cited in the report found broad public support for the right to resell or give away tickets after purchase.

The result is a policy fight with several overlapping tracks. Congress is weighing the TICKET Act and related antitrust-settlement reforms. The court is reviewing the DOJ settlement under the Tunney Act. State plaintiffs are seeking remedies after winning at trial. And consumer advocates are pressing lawmakers to make sure that reform does not stop at all-in pricing, but also includes free transferability and genuine resale competition.

RELATED: Live Nation Seeks to Pause Breakup Fight Until After Tunney Act Settlement Review

Live Nation has rejected the monopoly framing and has argued that breaking up the company would not solve the underlying causes of high ticket prices, which it attributes largely to demand, artist pricing decisions, and broader industry dynamics. The company has also said it supports certain ticketing reforms, including resale-focused changes, while continuing to challenge the verdict and the push for structural remedies.

But the Cuccinelli-Ketterer op-ed reflects a growing view among critics of the company that the verdict has changed the political and legal posture of the debate. If Live Nation/Ticketmaster has already been found liable for monopolization, they argue, the next question is not whether ticketing reform is warranted, but what kind of reform will actually reduce the company’s control over fans, venues, artists, and rival marketplaces.

That is where the TICKET Act and transferability protections intersect. All-in pricing would make ticket costs clearer. Refund guarantees would give consumers baseline protections when events are canceled or postponed. But open transferability would address a different problem: whether fans can choose where to sell, give away, or otherwise transfer the tickets they already bought.

The monopoly verdict opened the door to that broader conversation. The fight now is over whether lawmakers and courts walk through it.

Holdout states want remedies proceedings to run alongside Tunney Act review, warning Live Nation’s schedule could delay relief nearly a year after approval of the federal deal.

 Live Nation Seeks to Pause Breakup Fight Until After DOJ Settlement Review – Which Could Take Up to a Year

Live Nation and Ticketmaster are now seeking to turn the next phase of their antitrust loss into a sequencing fight: one that could determine whether the states that beat them at trial get a prompt opportunity to pursue breakup remedies, or whether the company first locks in the narrower Justice Department settlement it has repeatedly described as the likely endpoint of the case.

In a joint letter filed Friday (PDF opens in new window), the Justice Department, the plaintiff states, and Live Nation laid out competing schedules for post‑trial motions, review of the DOJ settlement under the Tunney Act, and any remedies phase following the jury’s finding that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally maintained monopoly power.

The filing is the major post‑verdict fight over whether the holdout states’ push for broader remedies – including a potential breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster – will move forward promptly or be forced to wait until after the DOJ’s more limited settlement has already been reviewed and potentially entered by the court.

That distinction matters because the DOJ settlement does not require Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster. Instead, it relies on a package of conduct restrictions, ticketing‑access provisions, venue‑related obligations, a monitor, an eight‑year decree term, penalties for violations, and a roughly $280.4 million settlement fund. The term sheet also includes provisions requiring Ticketmaster to support primary‑ticket distribution through third‑party marketplaces, offer venues exclusive and non‑exclusive ticketing options, cap service fees at certain Live Nation‑controlled amphitheaters at 15%, terminate a ticketing services agreement with Oak View Group, and refrain from retaliating against venues that choose a primary ticketer other than Ticketmaster.

But for the states that refused to join that deal and then won at trial, those measures are not the end of the case. They are the starting point for a broader argument: whether behavioral rules are sufficient after a jury found the companies unlawfully preserved monopoly power, or whether the court should impose structural relief that Live Nation has spent months insisting is off the table.

RELATED: State AGs Now Explicitly Seek Live Nation Breakup After Monopoly Verdict

Friday’s filing shows that Live Nation wants that fight delayed.

The defendants told Judge Arun Subramanian that any remedies proceedings should come only after two things happen: first, the court rules on Live Nation’s expected Rule 50 and Rule 59 post‑trial motions; second, the Tunney Act review of the DOJ settlement is completed. Live Nation argues that the DOJ final judgment should establish a “binding baseline” of equitable relief before the court considers what, if anything, the holdout states may additionally obtain.

In other words, Live Nation wants the federal settlement entered first, then wants the states to explain what additional relief they believe remains necessary.

That sequencing would give the DOJ settlement practical weight before the states’ remedy case begins in earnest. Once the settlement is entered, Live Nation can argue that any additional state relief should be assessed against the competitive baseline created by the federal decree—a baseline that leaves Ticketmaster inside Live Nation.

The plaintiff states are pressing for the opposite approach.

They propose that fact discovery related to remedies proceed at the same time as the 60‑day Tunney Act public‑comment period. They also want that discovery to be available for the court’s consideration when it decides whether the DOJ settlement is in the public interest under the Tunney Act. And they are urging Judge Subramanian to reserve his Tunney Act determination until after a hearing on the states’ proposed remedies is complete, so the court can assess the federal settlement and the states’ requested relief together.

The states argue that this approach would avoid duplication, promote judicial efficiency, and help ensure that any obligations imposed on Live Nation and Ticketmaster do not conflict. They specifically warn that Live Nation’s proposed schedule would “needlessly delay” the court’s consideration of remedies and could push relief for the states nearly a year beyond completion of the Tunney Act process.

The Plaintiff States submit that Defendants’ proposed schedule will needlessly delay the
Court’s consideration of the remedies proceedings and will be less efficient for the parties and the
Court. There is no basis for delaying consideration of the Plaintiff States’ proposed remedies until
after completion of Tunney Act proceedings—and Defendants’ proposed schedule would delay
consideration of relief for the Plaintiff States for nearly a year after the Tunney Act proceeding
concludes. Further, the Plaintiffs States’ entitlement to certain remedies does not depend on what
the other Plaintiffs may have agreed to in the context of a settlement

From the joint letter linked above

That warning sits at the core of the new dispute. The states are not merely asking to be heard eventually. They are trying to prevent the DOJ’s narrower settlement from becoming the procedural foundation against which all later remedies are judged.

The Justice Department, for its part, is focused on keeping its settlement on track. In Friday’s letter, DOJ said it expects to file the proposed final judgment, stipulation and order, and explanation of Tunney Act procedures by late May. It then expects to be in a position to move for entry of final judgment in early or mid‑September, after the 60‑day public‑comment period runs, DOJ responds to public comments, and other Tunney Act requirements are satisfied.

DOJ told the court it sees no reason to delay entry of the settlement pending the states’ remedies proceedings. It also said it does not believe Tunney Act discovery is necessary or warranted at this stage, though it took no position on whether the plaintiff states and defendants should conduct remedies discovery while the Tunney Act process is ongoing.

That leaves three distinct positions before Subramanian. DOJ wants its settlement reviewed and entered on a relatively clean track. The states want that review coordinated with their broader remedy case. Live Nation wants the remedy case postponed until after both its post‑trial motions and the DOJ settlement review are complete.

The filing also sets the schedule for Live Nation’s immediate challenge to the verdict. Defendants intend to file post‑trial motions under Rules 50 and 59, with opening briefs due May 21, the states’ opposition briefs due June 18, replies due July 2, and any hearing to be scheduled after July 9.

Those motions are expected to renew Live Nation’s effort to undo or narrow the jury’s findings, including its renewed challenge to the damages testimony of economist Rosa Abrantes‑Metz. The states have asked to file additional briefing opposing Live Nation’s motion to strike that testimony. Live Nation opposes the request, arguing the issue has already been fully briefed, though it seeks leave to reply if the court permits further state filings.

That dispute fits a broader post‑verdict pattern. Live Nation has made clear it does not view the jury’s decision as the final word. After the verdict, the company said it would renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law, continue attacking the damages foundation, and appeal unfavorable rulings. Its public position has remained that the ultimate outcome should not materially differ from the DOJ settlement—even after a jury found against it on the surviving monopolization and tying claims.

Friday’s letter shows how that posture is translating into litigation strategy. Live Nation is not only trying to overturn the verdict; it is also seeking to control the order in which consequences are considered.

For the states, that is precisely the risk. They went to trial because they viewed the DOJ deal as too weak. They won a verdict that enhanced their leverage. Now they are arguing that Live Nation should not be allowed to use the settlement it reached with DOJ during trial as a procedural shield against the broader remedies the jury verdict may support.

Live Nation counters that proceeding in parallel would be inefficient, prejudicial, and potentially confusing. It argues that Tunney Act review and post‑liability remedies proceedings involve different legal standards, and that the states could attempt to use Live Nation’s defense of the federal settlement as admissions supporting additional relief. The company also argues that the states should first file a framework outlining the remedies they seek before any remedies discovery begins.

That point may loom large. The states have now publicly signaled that breakup relief remains on the table. New York Attorney General Letitia James and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti recently wrote that the states will pursue remedies including “financial consequences” and “a breakup of Live Nation’s monopoly.” Friday’s filing does not lay out a final remedies proposal, but it makes clear that the non‑settling states want to move quickly toward that phase rather than wait for the federal settlement to define the boundaries of the case.

The question now is whether Judge Subramanian will allow the two tracks to converge.

If he adopts the states’ approach, the Tunney Act review of the DOJ settlement and the states’ pursuit of broader remedies could proceed in parallel, keeping the breakup fight squarely in view while the court assesses whether the federal deal serves the public interest. If he adopts Live Nation’s approach, the states’ remedy case would wait until after the company’s post‑trial motions and the DOJ settlement process are complete, giving Live Nation months to argue that the federal decree already provides the meaningful relief the market needs.

That would not end the breakup fight. But it would delay it—and, from Live Nation’s perspective, delay may be among the first outcomes it is now seeking.