THE BIG STORY: After five weeks of trial in a Manhattan federal courtroom, the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation finally went to the jury, which must now wade through the massive case to decide if the concert giant broke the law.
At closing arguments, an attorney for dozens of states called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that had run roughshod over the live music industry and hurt fans. The company’s attorney said it was instead a “fierce competitor” that had played fair and succeeded simply by outperforming its rivals.
Related
Which of those narratives will the jury believe? For now, the better question might be: How long will it take them to pick one?
Deliberations started Friday (April 10), and it’s anybody’s guess how long they’ll go. Antitrust cases are often tried as bench trials that are decided by a judge; handling such a case via jury trial is relatively rare. That’s because they are immensely complicated disputes involving economic theories and legal complexity that are difficult for regular people to understand. Does your neighbor know how to define a “relevant antitrust market”?
These jurors are tasked with weighing weeks of testimony and reams of documents to reach such determinations, including competing academic analyses of the economics of live music. They’re staring at a verdict sheet that is many pages long, featuring multi-part questions that read like logic games on the LSAT.
For context, when the government tried a similar case against Google over the dominance of its search engine, the two-month bench trial wrapped up in November 2023. The judge — a legal expert aided by a team of clerks — did not issue his ruling until August 2024.
The jury won’t deliberate for nine months, or anything close to it. But they are dealing with an almost impossibly detailed case and, if they really want to understand it, they could be there for a while. Or they could give up, just go with their guts and issue a verdict today.
You’re reading The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between. To get the newsletter in your inbox every Tuesday, subscribe here.
Other top stories this week…
— Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs and federal prosecutors battled at an appeals court as he sought to overturn his 50-month sentence, with judges grilling both sides over “exceptionally difficult” legal questions about how much time the star deserved.
— A real-life showgirl who sued Taylor Swift for trademark infringement over The Life of a Showgirl asked a judge for a nationwide injunction barring Swift from selling merch tied to her record-smashing album while the case plays out in court — an extraordinary request that’s unlikely be granted.
— Roc Nation’s insurance company filed a lawsuit to prove that it doesn’t need to pay for CEO Desiree Perez’s ongoing lawsuit with her daughter, arguing that it has nothing to do with her corporate role at the helm of Jay-Z‘s company.
— The two attorneys who won a landmark ruling for songwriter Cyril Vetter on copyright termination sat down for a Q&A with Billboard — talking about the case, their client and a potential battle at the Supreme Court: “I like our argument better than I like theirs.”
— Social media was filled with fake news that Justin Bieber’s Coachella set was mostly new songs because his big catalog sale prevented him from playing his old tracks. That’s not how copyright law works, and people close to the deal told Billboard it’s obviously “nonsense.”
— The Prince estate reached a settlement with singer Apollonia, ending their dispute over who owns legal rights to the name made famous by the movie Purple Rain.
— Bruce Springsteen‘s merch provider filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking counterfeit sales during the Land of Hopes and Dreams American Tour — starting with the Boss’ hometown show in New Jersey.
— Pooh Shiesty was denied release on bail after his bombshell arrest for allegedly barricading Gucci Mane in a Dallas recording studio and forcing the 1017 Records boss to sign a label deal release at gunpoint.
— Los Angeles prosecutors charged a 55-year-old woman named Michelle Dick with multiple felonies for allegedly stalking Lindsey Buckingham before assaulting the Fleetwood Mac singer in a recent attack.
— Irving Azoff’s Music Artists Coalition (MAC) threw its support behind Salt-N-Pepa (Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton) in their legal battle to win back control of their masters from Universal Music Group.
— A Taylor Swift fan can’t bring a class action against StubHub after her $14,000 Eras Tour tickets were voided on the day of the concert, a judge said, because she signed an arbitration agreement.
— StubHub agreed to pay $10 million to resolve accusations from the Federal Trade Commission that the ticket platform intentionally ignored new “junk fee” rules for the first few days they were in effect.
— Lil Baby’s hemp company sued a joint venture partner for allegedly tarnishing the rapper’s reputation by shipping illegal, contaminated cannabis products across the country.
— Maryland passed legislation to restrict when prosecutors can cite rap lyrics as criminal evidence against the artists who wrote them, becoming the third state to rein in the controversial practice.
Leave a comment