In a high-stakes legal showdown that could reshape the live entertainment industry, Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster are set to face a federal antitrust trial in New York, with jury selection scheduled for March 2, 2026, and opening statements the following day. The case, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and attorneys general from 39 states and Washington, D.C., accuses the entertainment giant of monopolistic practices that have allegedly harmed consumers, artists, and rival businesses alike.
The run-up to the trial has been anything but smooth. On February 22, 2026, Live Nation filed a motion to delay proceedings, seeking permission to appeal two recent legal rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian. The company argued that these rulings—one allowing the DOJ to proceed without evidence of actual price discrimination, and the other permitting a tying claim without defining a separate market for the “tied” product—raise substantial questions of law that could dramatically reshape the trial’s scope. Live Nation contended that clarity from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on these points could avoid unnecessary litigation and streamline the process.
But Judge Subramanian, presiding over the case at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, signaled on February 25 that he was “not inclined” to grant a delay. According to Pollstar, Subramanian told the parties during the final pre-trial conference that he would likely deny Live Nation’s request, emphasizing the need to keep the trial on track. The DOJ, for its part, wasted no time in blasting the delay attempt as a “desperate plea” and “meritless,” arguing in a 15-page opposition brief that the move was legally impermissible and would only prolong “ongoing competitive harm.”
“On the eve of a landmark monopolization trial, Defendants make a desperate plea. Rather than wait for the Court to rule on all their pending motions to reconsider, they have now moved to certify two questions for interlocutory appeal. But this motion is yet another meritless attempt to delay trial,” the DOJ wrote in its filing, as reported by Music Business Worldwide. The department further argued that federal law expressly prohibits this type of mid-case appeal in government antitrust actions, referencing the Expediting Act’s intent to prevent “fragmented appeals” and “undue delay.”
Live Nation, however, maintained that its request was justified, asserting that the judge’s rulings relied on incorrect case law and that a favorable appellate decision could “dramatically change” the nature of the looming trial. The company’s lawyers said in their motion that moving forward without resolving these legal questions could result in unnecessary litigation, especially in what they described as a “complex, month-long case.”
The DOJ was unswayed, insisting that Live Nation’s legal arguments were “dead on arrival.” The department highlighted the practical harm of any delay, noting that many witnesses had already made travel and scheduling arrangements, and that postponement could disrupt their availability. “Plaintiffs do not control those witnesses—many of whom have already made travel plans—and it is possible they will not be available at a later trial date. Although that may be a desirable outcome for Defendants, it is a key reason that last-minute interlocutory appeals and stays on the eve of trial are greatly disfavored,” the DOJ stated in its brief.
This legal back-and-forth comes after Judge Subramanian’s earlier rulings in February 2026, which trimmed some claims from the government’s complaint but allowed several major allegations to proceed. The judge dismissed charges that Live Nation monopolized the national concert promotion market and claims relating to fan experience, stating that the government had failed to properly define a nationwide market for fans. However, he allowed key claims to move forward, including allegations that Live Nation leveraged its control over amphitheaters to coerce artists into using its promotion services, and that Ticketmaster’s exclusive contracts with venues stifled competition in the ticketing market.
The DOJ’s lawsuit, filed in May 2024, targets what it describes as Live Nation’s “vertical integration”—the combination of promotion, venue ownership, and ticketing—which, according to the government, gives the company undue leverage over artists, venues, and consumers. The complaint accuses Live Nation of locking venues into exclusivity contracts, blocking artists from booking shows unless they use Live Nation’s promotion services, acquiring competitors, and threatening rivals. The government contends that these practices violate the Sherman Act and have led to higher prices and fewer choices for fans.
Live Nation has vigorously denied the allegations. In a statement following Judge Subramanian’s recent rulings, the company said, “Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment.” Live Nation further argued that competition has actually “eroded Ticketmaster’s market share” and maintained there is “no possible basis for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster” following the dismissal of certain claims.
Adding another layer to the unfolding drama, Live Nation’s executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs, Dan Wall, published a blog post titled “It’s Time to Move On” shortly after the judge’s ruling. In the post, Wall criticized the government’s case and urged a settlement, arguing that the DOJ lacked evidence that the company’s structure had caused higher ticket prices and calling a court-ordered breakup “implausible.” The post was later quietly removed from the company’s website, with no official explanation.
Meanwhile, Live Nation continues to report strong financial results. The company’s latest earnings announcement boasted record annual performance, driven by increased global ticket sales and sustained demand for live events. Yet, as Law Commentary noted, the government maintains that these successes are a product of the company’s market dominance and exclusionary conduct, not healthy competition.
The trial’s outcome could have sweeping implications for the future of ticketing and live event promotion in the United States. If the DOJ and states prevail, it could lead to a breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, fundamentally altering the landscape for artists, venues, and fans. On the other hand, a victory for Live Nation could reinforce the status quo and embolden other vertically integrated giants in the entertainment industry.
Despite the legal wrangling and public posturing, Judge Subramanian has made it clear that he intends to move forward. As of February 25, 2026, the district court had not yet issued a written ruling on Live Nation’s delay request, but all signs point to the trial proceeding as scheduled. Both sides are preparing for what promises to be a landmark battle over the future of live entertainment in America.
As the courtroom drama heats up, industry insiders, artists, and fans alike are watching closely—wondering whether this case will finally bring meaningful change to the way America buys concert tickets, or if the show will go on as usual.