news.volyx.in

US Justice Department to seek breakup of Live Nation-Ticketmaster (bloomberg.com)

893 points by 1986 · 813 days ago · 306 comments on HN

Article summary

The US Justice Department is seeking to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster due to concerns over their market dominance. The decision comes after years of criticism over the company's practices, including high fees and alleged collusion with scalpers. The breakup could have significant implications for the music industry and ticketing market. The move is seen as a rare example of antitrust enforcement in the US.

Main themes

  • Antitrust enforcement
  • Market dominance
  • Ticketing industry
  • Regulatory oversight
  • Monopoly concerns

What commenters say

  • The breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster is long overdue, given their history of exploiting consumers with high fees and alleged collusion with scalpers.
  • The lack of antitrust enforcement in the US has allowed companies like Live Nation and Ticketmaster to grow unchecked, harming consumers and competitors.
  • The decision to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster may be motivated by political considerations, and its outcome is uncertain given the potential for changes in administration.
  • The ticketing industry's problems cannot be solely blamed on Live Nation and Ticketmaster, as other factors such as venue fees and international market differences also play a role.
  • The alleged collusion between Ticketmaster and scalpers is a major concern, with some commenters sharing personal experiences of being exploited by these practices.
  • The effectiveness of antitrust enforcement is limited by the ability of political appointees to influence decisions on specific cases, potentially allowing companies to avoid accountability.
  • The breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster could have significant benefits for consumers, including lower fees and greater competition in the ticketing market.
  • The case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster is not a straightforward one, with some arguing that the company's practices are not necessarily harmful and that the breakup could have unintended consequences.