Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#31

Post by echelon » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:27 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #29

jp57 wrote: post #16

The horizontal control of venues is only one issue. A perhaps bigger issue is the vertical integration (if that's the right term) of first-party ticket sales and resale in one company. Ticketmaster has no real incentive to try to prevent resellers from buying up all the tickets on first sale, because it gets to charge fees on all the resales through its platform. The more times a ticket is resold, the better. I don't…

Why not just ban the transfer of tickets and allow refunds? You buy a ticket, you show your ID at the door. Early refunded tickets get resold online and late refunds are sold at the venue. All seats, including the best seats, go to actual fans instead of scalpers just hoping to make a profit while providing zero value. First choice in seats goes to the most passionate and attentive fans.

> Why not just ban the transfer of tickets and allow refunds? You buy a ticket, you show your ID at the door.

Because everyone on the seller side - including artists - make money on this.

If parties other than fans / buyers cared, it would be a solved problem.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#32

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:27 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #7

In case you wondered what the point of the federal (i.e. states not totally controlled by federal government) system is, here's a good example. If only the federal government were allowed to pursue this case, it would have ended when the administration changed. 30 states chose to keep the case alive, and good on them.

On the other hand, I'm not sure a European style tribunal would have been allowed to settle the case early.

Yes. It's good that the states can serve as a check on the Federal level government. But why can the federal level government give up on cases on a national level? Just because a different party was voted in?

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#33

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:29 PM UTC

xrd wrote: post #12

tomwheeler wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds about right. The attorneys take $1.52 and leave the victim with $0.20. And then nothing actually happens that would restore a competitive marketplace.

Back in my day, the federal government would break up monopolies.

Bidens administration was breaking up Google before Trump came in and stopped the breakup.

Elections have consequences.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#34

Post by cdrnsf » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:38 PM UTC

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

They never should've been allowed to merge. Funnily enough Ticketmaster has the only free API I've found for concert data and it has a ton of results because it is a monopoly.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#35

Post by esseph » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:38 PM UTC

jp57 wrote: post #16

The horizontal control of venues is only one issue. A perhaps bigger issue is the vertical integration (if that's the right term) of first-party ticket sales and resale in one company. Ticketmaster has no real incentive to try to prevent resellers from buying up all the tickets on first sale, because it gets to charge fees on all the resales through its platform. The more times a ticket is resold, the better. I don't…

> A perhaps bigger issue is the vertical integration (if that's the right term) of first-party ticket sales and resale in one company.

Similar problem with "healthcare" insurance companies in the US.

We need a global crackdown on the breadth of markets a company can be involved in - somehow.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#36

Post by itopaloglu83 » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:38 PM UTC

hackingonempty wrote: post #3

from the NYT: > The jury determined that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. I'm already planning what I'm going to do with the $0.20 refund I receive for each ticket I bought.

Oh, silly me, that's why a $45 ticket came out to $78 at checkout.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#37

Post by wccrawford » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:39 PM UTC

micromacrofoot wrote: post #11

jazzpush2 wrote: post #8

Now do service fees and 'convenience' fees. Every ticket I buy for a movie somehow costs $2 extra now. (As with everything else). Robbery.

usually the service fee doesn't even get refunded, which feels additionally foul

I think that's exactly the point. They've charged you $2 to process the request. They did that work. Even if you get the money back for the event, they still did the job, so they won't refund the service fee.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#38

Post by cdrnsf » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:45 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #18

Concert seats should be handled the same as airline seats. I can buy the same airline seat from dozens of different places online. Why is that?

Because the US espouses the virtues of the free market while embracing monopolies. If they cared about dealing with the latter they would empower more regulators like Lina Khan.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#39

Post by ricardobeat » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:46 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #18

Concert seats should be handled the same as airline seats. I can buy the same airline seat from dozens of different places online. Why is that?

Airlines need distribution. Concert venues don’t.

Mid/high profile venues know they will sell out regardless, they can shop around the venue rights to the highest bidder.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#40

Post by danaris » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 8:46 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #32

rossdavidh wrote: post #7

In case you wondered what the point of the federal (i.e. states not totally controlled by federal government) system is, here's a good example. If only the federal government were allowed to pursue this case, it would have ended when the administration changed. 30 states chose to keep the case alive, and good on them.

On the other hand, I'm not sure a European style tribunal would have been allowed to settle the case early. Yes. It's good that the states can serve as a check on the Federal level government. But why can the federal level government give up on cases on a national level? Just because a different party was voted in?

The problem is that the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, and due to the burgeoning of the Imperial Presidency over the past several decades, that means that as soon as a new President is voted in, he can order the DoJ to change all their priorities to match his.

Our system doesn't have to be this way, even with the federal/state split; it doesn't even have to be this way with the designation of the DoJ as being within the Executive Branch. It's taken a lot of erosion of norms and flagrant breaking of laws to get to the point the US is at now.