On Tuesday opening statements will begin for the federal antitrust trial against Live Nation, one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. In a New York City courtroom, prosecutors are expected to argue that Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster, have engaged in anticompetitive practices that profoundly harm musicians, venues and ticket buyers.

The trial is the result of a lawsuit originally filed by the Justice Department in 2024, though calls for reforms to the ticketing industry have been building for much longer. Back in 2022, chaotic sales for Taylor Swift's blockbuster Eras Tour — which included high pricing, long queues and a crashing platform — resulted in outcry from the singer and legal action from coalitions of Swifties. That event led to scrutiny from government officials, laying the groundwork for this week's events. In recent years, artists including The Cure and Olivia Dean have also criticized Live Nation and Ticketmaster for its pricing models and fought for fans to receive partial refunds.

Despite Live Nation's repeated attempts to get the government's lawsuit dismissed, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian ultimately ruled to move forward with a trial. In response to questions from NPR, Live Nation stated that a majority of ticket prices in the U.S. are under $100 and referred to a breakdown of the Justice Department's claims written by Dan Wall, executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs at Live Nation.

The federal government and 39 states, plus the District of Columbia, are suing Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster.

Since its foundation under a different name in 1996, Live Nation has promoted live events and managed venues. Over the years, it acquired additional companies in the live entertainment space and became the top concert promoter in the U.S. Ticketmaster, which was founded by two Arizona State University staffers in 1976, started out selling hardware for ticketing systems and expanded into the leading ticket selling company in the country. (In 1994, Pearl Jam famously boycotted Ticketmaster, alleging the company's control over ticketing was driving up service charges, which prompted a Justice Department investigation that was later dropped).

In 2009, Ticketmaster and Live Nation announced plans to merge, sparking backlash from artists like Bruce Springsteen and lawmakers including Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. The following year, the Justice Department approved the consolidation of the two companies under a number of conditions meant to ensure it would not monopolize the live music industry. Now, the Justice Department claims Live Nation has not held up its end of the bargain.

The government alleges that Live Nation and Ticketmaster are unfairly wielding their power over concert promotion, artist management, venue operations and ticketing services to shut out competitors. According to the amended lawsuit, Live Nation manages more than 400 artists and owns or controls more than 265 venues in North America, while Ticketmaster controls around 80% of ticketing in the primary marketplace, plus a growing share of the resale market.

"The government and a bunch of state governments looked at what was happening and said, 'We think this company has too much control over too many different areas of the industry and it's using its different parts of the music business as weapons,'" says John Newman, a law professor at the University of Memphis who focuses on antitrust law. "When it's facing venues, it's using its control over promotion and ticketing as a weapon. Then, when it's turning around and dealing with artists, it's using its control over event venues as a weapon. There's just too much control over too many different areas."

The government alleges that artists are pressured to use Live Nation and Ticketmaster's promotion services in order to perform at its venues, especially major amphitheaters; on the other hand, venues are allegedly cornered into signing long term, exclusive contracts with Live Nation and Ticketmaster in order to gain a number of benefits, including being able to host lucrative shows. Ultimately, the government claims that both artists and venues lose the ability to make independent choices or work with competing promotion and ticketing companies without facing major financial risks or retaliation from Live Nation.

"These business practices can, and often do, work against the interests of those with relatively little power and influence, especially working musicians and fans," reads the lawsuit.