Want to tell the DOJ what you feel about its antitrust settlement with Live Nation? You have until September 4

Fans, artists, venues, promoters and other ticketing industry participants have until September 4 to submit public comments on the Justice Department’s proposed antitrust settlement with Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster.

The 60-day comment period is part of the settlement’s review under the Tunney Act, which requires a federal judge to determine that a consent judgment proposed by the Justice Department is in the public interest before approving it.

Comments can support the agreement, oppose it or recommend changes. They are submitted to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, which must consider the comments, issue a response and file both the comments and its response with the federal court overseeing the case. The comments, including the names of those submitting them, will also be posted publicly.

The process offers members of the live entertainment industry – and ticket buyers affected by the practices challenged in the government’s lawsuit – a formal opportunity to address whether the settlement adequately responds to Live Nation’s power across ticketing, concert promotion and venue operations.

Comments can be submitted via email or regular mail sent to the antitrust division. They should be in english, and will be published publicly at the end of the comment period. Details about how to send in your comments are available at the end of this article.

Settlement Still Requires Judicial Approval

The proposed final judgment was filed by the Justice Department, Live Nation and six states—Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Dakota. The agreement does not become final merely because those parties have accepted it.

Under the Tunney Act, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian must consider the settlement’s competitive impact, its enforcement provisions, the duration and adequacy of its relief, alternatives considered by the government and the agreement’s effects on the relevant markets and members of the public who allege they were harmed.

The law does not require Subramanian to conduct another trial or hold an evidentiary hearing. It does, however, allow him to review objections, hear from experts and interested parties, appoint outside advisers or take other steps he considers appropriate before deciding whether to enter the judgment.

Public comments are therefore not simply a customer-service survey or an informal petition. They become part of the record the Justice Department and court will use while reviewing a settlement that could shape competition in the concert and ticketing industries for years.

They are not, however, votes. The number of comments on either side does not automatically determine whether the agreement is approved. Comments are likely to be most useful when they explain specifically how the proposed provisions would—or would not—address the competitive conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

What the Live Nation Settlement Would Do

The Justice Department’s proposed judgment would require Ticketmaster to develop technology allowing major concert venues using its back-end software to sell and distribute primary tickets through competing marketplaces.

It would also loosen some Ticketmaster venue exclusivity provisions, restrict the length and scope of future exclusive ticketing contracts and allow artists and promoters to use alternative ticket sellers at Live Nation-controlled amphitheaters.

Other provisions would cap certain ticket service fees at Live Nation amphitheaters, require the divestiture of control over certain amphitheaters, restrict retaliation and other conduct that impairs competition, establish information firewalls between Ticketmaster and Live Nation, terminate Ticketmaster’s agreement with Oak View Group and place the companies under the supervision of a compliance monitor.

The Justice Department has characterized the deal as meaningful and immediate relief. Antitrust Division officials have argued that opening Ticketmaster-powered events to rival ticket sellers, restricting exclusive contracts and allowing artists greater freedom to work with other promoters will create more choice and competition without waiting through years of further litigation and appeals.

The agreement nevertheless leaves the core Live Nation-Ticketmaster corporate structure intact. It does not require Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster, despite the government’s original complaint requesting structural relief that could include “at minimum” a separation of the companies.

Settlement Has Faced Sustained Opposition

The proposed judgment has faced substantial public opposition since it was announced, with critics arguing that its conduct restrictions leave the central source of Live Nation’s market power largely untouched: the company’s continued ownership of Ticketmaster alongside its concert-promotion, venue, festival and artist-management operations.

Most of the states participating in the original lawsuit refused to join the federal settlement and continued through trial. Those states subsequently secured a jury verdict finding Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable on the remaining antitrust claims and are pursuing broader remedies that could include separating the two companies. The verdict sharpened criticism of a Justice Department agreement that had already been attacked as too limited, particularly because the department’s original lawsuit sought structural relief.

The circumstances surrounding the agreement have generated a separate line of criticism. Former Justice Department antitrust officials have said the trial team believed it could win the case and alleged that the settlement followed inappropriate political and lobbying pressure. A later court filing confirmed that Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino spoke with President Donald Trump about the lawsuit before the settlement became public and that White House lawyers participated in communications involving Live Nation and the Justice Department, although Live Nation said substantive settlement terms were not discussed during Rapino’s conversation with Trump.

Lawmakers, state attorneys general, consumer advocates and independent music organizations have also questioned whether the agreement provides relief proportionate to the conduct alleged—and later proven by the non-settling states. Critics have called for closer Tunney Act scrutiny and, in some cases, a breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster rather than another set of behavioral restrictions governing the combined company.

The National Independent Venue Association is now urging independent venues, promoters, festivals, artists and fans to place those concerns into the formal public record. NIVA Executive Director Stephen Parker argues that the proposed settlement would allow Live Nation to retain the collection of businesses and capabilities underlying its power across the live entertainment industry, leaving what he described as the company’s monopoly “virtually intact.”

The Justice Department has defended the settlement as a way to deliver enforceable competitive changes more quickly than continued litigation and appeals. The public comment process gives opponents—and supporters of that calculation—an opportunity to address whether those changes are sufficient before the court decides whether the agreement is in the public interest.

How to Submit Public Comments on Live Nation’s Settlement

Comments can be submitted via email (to LiveNationPublicComment@usdoj.gov) or mailed to

David Teslicko, Acting Chief
Financial Services, Fintech, and Banking Section
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4000
Washington, DC 20530

Comments must be submitted in English. The case is United States et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C., No. 1:24-cv-3973-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.