Vermont AG Helped Win a Landmark Antitrust Case Against Ticketmaster. Here’s What It Means for Vermonters
A jury found Ticketmaster operated an illegal monopoly — after Vermont and 33 other states rejected a DOJ settlement. Vermonters feel the effects of this monopoly every time they buy a concert ticket.
On Wednesday, a Manhattan federal jury found that Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster violated federal and state antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly over the live events industry. The verdict came after a five-week trial — and after the Trump administration’s Department of Justice tried to settle the case mid-trial on terms that Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark and more than 30 other states rejected as inadequate.
According to the state coalition, the jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster liable on every monopolization count brought by the plaintiffs. It determined that Ticketmaster overcharged consumers by $1.72 per ticket at 257 major venues across 22 states over the past five years. Those damages could be trebled under antitrust law. Live Nation estimates the base figure at below $150 million, which trebled could approach $450 million — well above the $280 million settlement fund the company had offered to resolve state claims under the DOJ deal.
But the financial penalty is only part of what’s at stake. A separate remedies trial before U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian will determine whether the court orders structural changes to Live Nation’s business — potentially including forced divestitures of venues, or even a full separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation, the remedy the original 2024 lawsuit sought.
Why This Matters to Vermont
Vermont has no Live Nation–owned amphitheaters. The case’s definition of “major concert venues” — facilities with at least 8,500 seats hosting 10 or more concerts per year — excludes every venue in the state.
But Vermonters feel the effects of this monopoly every time they buy a concert ticket.
When Vermonters purchase tickets to shows at larger venues across the Northeast — in Boston, Hartford, Albany, Saratoga Springs — they are buying into a system where, according to the states’ lawsuit, Ticketmaster controls roughly 86 percent of the ticketing market for major concerts. Live Nation disputes that figure.
The practical impact is straightforward: less competition in ticketing means higher service fees. The jury also found that Live Nation unlawfully required artists who play its amphitheaters to use its promotion services — a practice known as “tying.” That arrangement doesn’t just inflate costs at large venues. It shapes which artists tour where, potentially limiting the acts that reach smaller, independent venues like the ones Vermont has.
Financial recovery. As a member of the winning coalition, Vermont will participate in the remedies phase. The exact distribution of damages to individual states has not yet been determined, but the jury’s finding of a per-ticket overcharge could form the basis for consumer restitution. Clark’s office has not yet detailed how Vermont’s share might be allocated.
Lower fees. If the remedies trial produces structural reforms — particularly if the court requires Ticketmaster to open its platform to competitors or caps service fees — Vermonters could see direct savings on ticket purchases. The DOJ’s rejected settlement would have capped fees at 15 percent at Live Nation–owned amphitheaters only. The states are expected to push for broader relief.
Independent venue leverage. Vermont’s music economy runs through independent venues: Higher Ground, the Flynn Center, Nectar’s, the Barre Opera House, Signal Kitchen, and dozens of smaller rooms. These venues operate in a market where Ticketmaster’s dominance gives them few alternatives for ticketing services. A more competitive ticketing marketplace could give Vermont venues more choices and better terms.
The Settlement Vermont Rejected
The backstory of how this case reached a jury is itself a significant piece of the story.
The DOJ and 29 state attorneys general filed the antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation in May 2024 under the Biden administration. Ten additional states, including Vermont, joined the case that August, bringing the total to 40 state and territory plaintiffs. The trial began in early March 2026. One week in, the Trump administration’s DOJ abruptly settled.
The settlement offered behavioral changes: allowing multi-vendor ticketing at Live Nation venues, opening amphitheaters to outside promoters for up to 50 percent of booking inventory, capping certain fees at 15 percent, and extending an existing consent decree for eight years. Live Nation also agreed to divest 13 amphitheaters and created a $280 million fund for state damages claims.
A handful of states signed on. Vermont did not.
Clark and 33 other attorneys general — in a bipartisan coalition that included Republican AGs such as Pennsylvania’s Dave Sunday — concluded the settlement did not go far enough to dismantle what they had spent two years building a case to prove was an illegal monopoly. They pressed ahead with the trial, hiring veteran antitrust litigator Jeffrey Kessler to lead the case.
“The jury’s verdict is a win for consumers and for the marketplace,” Clark said Wednesday. “I look forward to the next phase of this lawsuit, which will determine Live Nation’s financial penalties and other consumer remedies.”
The circumstances surrounding the DOJ settlement have drawn pointed scrutiny. According to the senators’ letter, the deal was reached without the knowledge of the DOJ lawyers who were actively trying the case, and state attorneys general were not consulted. Judge Subramanian called the process “absolute disrespect for the court, the jury, and this entire process.”
Six U.S. senators — including Vermont’s Peter Welch — wrote to Judge Subramanian on the day of the verdict urging him to use his authority under the Tunney Act to scrutinize whether the settlement was made in the public interest. The senators cited sworn testimony from Roger Alford, the former No. 2 official in the DOJ Antitrust Division who was fired last year, warning that Live Nation had retained politically connected lobbyists to pressure the division. According to the senators’ letter, Alford stated in sworn testimony that Live Nation lobbyist Mike Davis had made threats against then-antitrust chief Gail Slater, who left her position in February — weeks before the settlement was reached.
Welch: ‘Music to My Ears’
Welch, a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, has been one of the most vocal critics of the DOJ settlement in Congress.
“This jury’s historic ruling is music to my ears — and I’m sure fans, musicians, and venue owners and operators join me in celebrating,” Welch said Wednesday. He specifically congratulated Clark for Vermont’s role in the case.
Welch has also co-sponsored the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act, legislation designed to strengthen judicial review of antitrust settlements and empower state attorneys general to intervene in federal consent decree proceedings. The bill is a direct response to what its sponsors describe as a pattern of politically influenced enforcement decisions.
“The Trump Administration has totally corrupted the antitrust process, making it nearly impossible to hold monopolies like Live Nation accountable for charging sky-high ticket prices for consumers and limiting artists’ ability to reach Americans,” Welch said.
What Comes Next
The verdict does not immediately change anything for concertgoers. Ticket prices will not drop tomorrow.
But the states now have a jury verdict that gives them substantial leverage in the remedies phase. Judge Subramanian has instructed both sides to submit a joint letter proposing a schedule for remedies motions. The states are expected to push for structural reforms that go well beyond what the DOJ settlement offered — potentially including a full separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation.
Live Nation has said it will appeal. The company characterized the $1.72 per-ticket finding as applying to a limited subset of tickets — those sold at 257 venues representing about 20 percent of total ticket volume — and estimated total single damages below $150 million before trebling.
The Tunney Act proceedings on the DOJ settlement will continue on a parallel track. Legal observers have noted that the jury’s verdict could complicate the court’s assessment of whether the settlement, as negotiated, adequately serves the public interest.
The broader significance extends beyond ticket prices. Legal commentators have described this as one of the first major cases in which state attorneys general carried an antitrust trial to verdict after the federal government walked away. The coalition’s decision to reject a settlement backed by the executive branch — and win — could reshape how states approach federal enforcement decisions in antitrust, consumer protection, and other areas where state and federal interests diverge.
For Vermont, a state with no major concert amphitheaters and a small AG’s office, the case is a demonstration of what coalition enforcement can accomplish. Clark’s office invested resources in a fight that had no guaranteed outcome. Wednesday’s verdict suggests the investment paid off.
The remedies trial has not yet been scheduled. Compass Vermont will continue to follow this case.