Photo Illustration by Bianca Alexis. Alexander Spatari/Getty Images (Times Square); Kevin Mazur/WireImage for Parkwood (Beyonce); Hector Vivas/TAS23/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management (Teens); Buda Mendes/TAS23/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management (Taylor Swift); Courtesy of Live Nation (Logo); Courtesy of YouTube (Logo); Shutterstock.com (All Other Images)

No Competition!

Companies such as Ticketmaster, Google, and Amazon are under fire for allegedly acting as unfair monopolies. Will the federal government break them up?

March 11, 2024

By Chrisanne Grisé

One morning in November 2022, K.J. Haakenson, then 22, logged in to Ticketmaster before work. A “huge Swiftie,” she was excited to buy tickets to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, which would kick off in winter 2023 and is still ongoing. But for Haakenson—and 14 million other fans—the ticket-buying process didn’t go as planned. She waited for what seemed like an eternity in the site’s virtual queue, growing increasingly anxious as time ticked by and she remained nowhere close to making a purchase.

Finally, after six hours, Haakenson’s turn came up, and she scrambled to find seats. When a technical glitch kicked her out and put her at the back of the queue again, she almost gave up, but ultimately decided to try once more—and managed to snag two tickets for $321. It had taken almost eight hours.

“By the end, I was emotionally exhausted from the roller coaster of waiting rooms and disappearing seats,” Haakenson, now 23, says.

In November 2022, K.J. Haakenson, then 22, logged in to Ticketmaster one morning before work She was excited to buy tickets to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. The tour was kicking off in winter 2023 and is still ongoing. But for Haakenson—and 14 million other fans—the ticket-buying process didn’t go as planned. She waited for hours in the site’s virtual queue. She grew increasingly anxious as time ticked by and she was not close to being able to buy tickets.

Finally, after six hours, it was Haakenson’s turn. She hurried to find seats. A technical glitch kicked her out and put her at the back of the queue again. She almost gave up, but decided to try one more time. She managed to get two tickets for $321. It had taken her almost eight hours.

“By the end, I was emotionally exhausted from the roller coaster of waiting rooms and disappearing seats,” Haakenson, now 23, says.

The first antitrust trial of the modern internet era has begun.

Believe it or not, Haakenson was one of the lucky ones, because she managed to get tickets. Many people waited for hours as Ticketmaster’s site froze and crashed repeatedly, only to eventually find out that there were no tickets left. And for those who did grab some, tickets cost as much as $449 each—before Ticketmaster tacked on its sizable fees.

Many Swift fans were furious and quickly began pointing fingers at Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, blaming their monopoly over the live music industry for the glitches and high costs. (Tickets to see other top acts such as Beyoncé and Bruce Springsteen also made headlines around the same time for their exorbitant prices, sometimes topping $5,000 per seat.)

Believe it or not, Haakenson was one of the lucky ones. She was able to get tickets. Many people waited for hours because Ticketmaster’s site froze and crashed repeatedly. Then after waiting all that time, they found out there were no tickets left. And for those who did manage to get tickets, they cost as much as $449 each—before Ticketmaster added additional fees.

Many Swift fans were furious. They quickly began to blame Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment. The fans felt that their monopoly over the live music industry was responsible for the glitches and high costs. (Tickets to see other top acts such as Beyoncé and Bruce Springsteen also made headlines around the same time for their extremely high prices, sometimes topping $5,000 per seat.)

What’s a Monopoly?

A monopoly happens when one company controls most or all of the market for a given product or service. Live Nation sells tens of millions of tickets each year and owns or controls more than 300 concert venues around the world, far more than any other player in the business. That lack of serious competition, critics argue, is harmful for customers.

“Market competition is thought to benefit consumers by forcing companies to make new products, make them better, sell them for less,” says Rebecca Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school. “If there’s only one person [or] one company selling a product or a service, then they don’t have to worry about making it affordable or making it really great.”

Live Nation isn’t the only company today that’s been called a monopoly; tech giants such as Google, Amazon, and Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram) have long faced similar accusations. Now the federal government is setting its sights on their allegedly monopolistic practices: In September, the first antitrust trial of the modern internet era began against Google. Another federal monopoly suit against Amazon followed the same month, and more are likely still to come against Apple, Meta, and others.

A monopoly happens when one company controls most or all of the market for a given product or service. Live Nation sells tens of millions of tickets each year and owns or controls more than 300 concert venues around the world. This is far more than any other company in the business. Critics argue that the lack of serious competition is harmful for customers.

Live Nation isn’t the only company today that’s been called a monopoly. Tech giants such as Google, Amazon, and Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram) have also faced similar accusations. Now the federal government is setting its sights on their allegedly monopolistic practices. The first antitrust trial of the modern internet era began in November against Google. Another federal monopoly suit against Amazon followed the same month. There are likely to be more cases to come involving Apple, Meta, and others.

Government concerns over monopolies are nothing new. Towards the end of the 19th century, many American companies in the oil, railroad, and steel industries merged into trusts, which allowed them to secretly maintain the same prices or raise prices together without fear of competition. But in 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, which gives the federal government the authority to break up monopolies. President Theodore Roosevelt earned a reputation as a “trust buster” by using the act to combat illegal monopolies. (Monopolies are illegal if they deliberately stifle competition to get or keep their monopoly status.)

One of the first major antitrust cases pitted the government against Northern Securities, a trust that controlled almost all railroad shipping in the United States. In 1902, Roosevelt’s administration charged Northern Securities with maintaining an illegal monopoly and, after the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices ruled in favor of dissolving the company.

Government concerns over monopolies are nothing new. Toward the end of the 19th century, many American companies in the oil, railroad, and steel industries merged into trusts. This practice allowed them to secretly maintain the same prices or raise prices together without fear of competition. But in 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act. The law gives the federal government the ability to break up monopolies. President Theodore Roosevelt earned a reputation as a “trust buster” by using the act to combat illegal monopolies. Monopolies are illegal if they deliberately hold back competition to get or keep their monopoly status.

One of the first major antitrust cases involved the government and Northern Securities. It was a trust that controlled almost all railroad shipping in the United States. In 1902, Roosevelt’s administration charged Northern Securities with maintaining an illegal monopoly. The case went to the Supreme Court and the justices ruled in favor of dissolving the company.

Library of Congress

Theodore Roosevelt was known as a “trust buster.”

Soon after, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, which controlled about 90 percent of the nation’s refining capacity, was accused of using its immense power to undercut competitors. It was broken up into smaller companies that later became Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, among others.

There are more modern examples: For a long time, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) was basically the only phone company, but in the 1970s, the Justice Department filed a suit against them, and eventually the company was split into seven parts. This opened the door to the creation of Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and other phone companies.

But for the past four decades, there hasn’t been as much antitrust enforcement. Instead, the government has generally let businesses compete freely among themselves, thinking that would lead to a better marketplace.

“That theory . . . hasn’t turned out to be true,” Allensworth argues. “Forty years of letting companies do what they want has resulted in monopolies, market concentration, and a lot of harm to consumers.”

Soon after, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company was accused of using its immense power to undercut competitors. At the time, the company controlled about 90 percent of the nation’s refining capacity. It was broken up into smaller companies that later became Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, among others.

There are more modern examples. For a long time, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) was basically the only phone company. The Justice Department filed a suit against them in the 1970s. Eventually the company was split into seven parts. This opened the door to the creation of Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and other phone companies.

But for the past 40 years, there hasn’t been as much antitrust enforcement. Instead, the government has generally let businesses compete freely among themselves, thinking that would lead to a better marketplace.

A Swift Response

Recently there’s been increased pressure to limit monopoly power, with both the Trump and Biden administrations taking more-aggressive approaches to antitrust law, according to Allensworth.

Early last year, as complaints surged over Ticketmaster’s handling of tickets for Swift’s tour, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee subpoenaed Live Nation and Ticketmaster to testify. At the hearing, committee members from both parties pilloried a top Live Nation executive, Joe Berchtold, over ticket prices, website snafus, and longstanding allegations that the company badgers its competitors to win business. In 2019, for example, the Justice Department said that Live Nation had threatened to withhold tours from venues if those venues did not sign deals with Ticketmaster. Many artists and venues say they have little choice but to use the site.

Recently there’s been increased pressure to limit monopoly power. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have taken a more aggressive approach to antitrust law, according to Allensworth.

Early last year, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee subpoenaed Live Nation and Ticketmaster to testify because of the complaints over the handling of tickets for Swift’s tour. At the hearing, committee members from both parties aggressively questioned a top Live Nation executive, Joe Berchtold. They asked about ticket prices, website snafus, and longstanding allegations that the company badgers its competitors to win business. In 2019, for example, the Justice Department said that Live Nation had threatened to keep tours away from venues if they did not sign deals with Ticketmaster. Many artists and venues say they have little choice but to use the site.

There’s been increased pressure to limit monopoly power.

Berchtold largely attributed Ticketmaster’s failings to online bots, or automated programs run by scalpers who seek to snatch up tickets before consumers can purchase them. (Those scalpers often resell the tickets for astronomical prices.) He also pushed back against many of the accusations, saying that Live Nation doesn’t threaten venues; that those venues hold a great deal of leverage in negotiating ticketing contracts; and that new entrants, like SeatGeek, a rival ticketing platform, have kept Ticketmaster on its toes.

“We believe ticketing has never been more competitive,” he said.

Not everyone agrees.

“If Taylor Swift is unhappy with the way her fans were treated by Ticketmaster, she doesn’t have a lot of options for her next tour,” Allensworth says.

Berchtold blamed Ticketmaster’s failings on online bots. The automated programs are run by scalpers who seek to buy tickets before consumers can purchase them. Then the scalpers often resell the tickets for extremely high prices. He also pushed back against many of the accusations, saying that Live Nation doesn’t threaten venues. He claimed that those venues hold a great deal of leverage in negotiating ticketing contracts. He also said that new companies, like SeatGeek, a rival ticketing platform, have kept Ticketmaster on its toes.

“We believe ticketing has never been more competitive,” he said.

Not everyone agrees.

“If Taylor Swift is unhappy with the way her fans were treated by Ticketmaster, she doesn’t have a lot of options for her next tour,” Allensworth says.

Taking On Tech Giants

So far, the government hasn’t tried to break up Live Nation. But it has sued Google and Amazon.

In September, the Justice Department took Google to court, accusing it of abusing its power over online searches to throttle competition. The case centers on whether Google squashed other search engines by paying Apple and other companies to make Google the default on the iPhone as well as on other devices and platforms. In legal filings, the Justice Department has argued that Google maintained a monopoly through such agreements, making it harder for consumers to use other search engines. Google has said that its deals with Apple and others weren’t exclusive and that consumers could alter the default settings on their devices to choose alternative platforms.

Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission and 17 states sued Amazon, accusing the company of using illegal tactics to control online shopping in ways that stifled competition and raised prices for consumers and costs to sellers. Amazon maintains that regulators misunderstand how the retail industry operates and how its policies benefit consumers and sellers.

“Amazon may not be the small business it once was,” the company said in a statement, “but we’re still just a piece of a massive and robust retail market with numerous options for consumers and sellers.”

This year, the Justice Department could also file an antitrust case taking aim at Apple’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone, experts say.

Government victories in some of these lawsuits could change these companies’ business practices or lead to their breakup. But if the tech companies win, the suits could act as a referendum on increasingly aggressive government regulators and raise questions about the efficacy of century-old antitrust laws, says Bill Baer, a former top antitrust official at the Justice Department.

“It is a test of whether our current antitrust laws,” he says, “can adapt to markets that are susceptible to monopolization in the 21st century.”

So far, the government hasn’t tried to break up Live Nation. But it has sued Google and Amazon.

In September, the Justice Department took Google to court. It accused Google of abusing its power over online searches to destroy the competition. The case centers on whether Google squashed other search engines by paying Apple and other companies to make Google the default search engine on devices like the iPhone and other platforms. In legal filings, the Justice Department has argued that Google maintained a monopoly through such agreements. It has made it harder for consumers to use other search engines. Google has said that its deals with Apple and others weren’t exclusive. Consumers could change the default settings on their devices to choose other platforms.

Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission and 17 states sued Amazon. They accused the company of using illegal tactics to control online shopping. Accusations include stifling competition and raising prices for consumers and costs to sellers. Amazon maintains that regulators misunderstand how the retail industry operates and how its policies benefit consumers and sellers.

This year, the Justice Department could also file an antitrust case taking aim at Apple’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone, experts say.

Government victories in some of these lawsuits could change these companies’ business practices or lead to their breakup. But if the tech companies win, the suits could raise questions about aggressive government regulators and the value of century-old antitrust laws, says Bill Baer, a former top antitrust official at the Justice Department.

“It is a test of whether our current antitrust laws,” he says, “can adapt to markets that are susceptible to monopolization in the 21st century.”