Ticketmaster, Antitrust, and the Sound of a Watchdog Being Declawed

I was sitting in a library with carpet that smells like 1987 and democracy, reading a court docket the way other people scroll concert clips. Same thumb motion, less screaming. In the next room, a retiree was arguing with a copier. In Washington, the copier argues back, and it bills by the hour.

Because the hottest ticket in America right now is not a stadium tour. It is the U.S. government trying to prove that Live Nation and Ticketmaster turned live entertainment into a company town, right as the government’s own antitrust shop starts wobbling like a folding chair at a town hall.

What the case is, in plain English

The Justice Department sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster in 2024, alongside dozens of states. The allegation: the company unlawfully maintained monopolies across key parts of the live concert business, using tactics like exclusive dealing and tying to keep venues and artists in line. On paper, the government has sought structural relief, including divestiture of Ticketmaster.

The case is now barreling toward trial in federal court in New York. Jury selection is scheduled for March 2, 2026. Live Nation has fought to narrow or knock out the claims before a jury hears them, and a federal judge has allowed major parts of the case to proceed, even while trimming some theories.

Why the timing sets off alarms

The top political appointee running DOJ Antitrust, Gail Slater, left the job this month after reported clashes inside the department over enforcement direction and pace. DOJ leadership shifted, interim leadership shifted, and the public is left guessing whether the referee is still willing to call fouls when the home team has excellent lobbyists.

The Paine test: liberty or power?

A functioning antitrust division is not a luxury. It is one of the few tools the public has to stop private gatekeepers from turning markets into toll roads. If you want “liberty” in plain clothes, start with the liberty to compete: venues choosing vendors without fear, artists routing tours without being steered, and fans buying tickets without a market-power obstacle course.

The Orwell check: listen for euphemisms

In antitrust land, the polite words matter. Enforcement becomes “deal certainty.” Scrutiny becomes “delay.” Oversight becomes “red tape.” And “move faster” can quietly translate into “go softer.” Courts are slow. Evidence is slow. The law is not DoorDash.

The liberty ledger and the tradeoff

If DOJ tries this case on the merits, consumers and smaller competitors gain a chance at real oxygen, and artists and venues gain options. If enforcement can be outlasted through staffing churn and inside baseball, the already powerful gain time and leverage, and the public loses civic trust.

Guardrails before this becomes a civics cautionary tale

• Sunlight: plain-English clarity on remedies and why they fix the harm.
• Real oversight: records on contacts, recusals, and decision-making.
• Continuity: deterrence requires the cop on the beat to stay on the beat.
• Federalism as backstop: states keep leverage from collapsing when federal enforcement wobbles.

Courts will do their part in March. The question is whether the executive branch will let the system function when the political cost rises and the lobbying pressure spikes.