President Donald Trump told the Department of Justice to settle its antitrust suit with Live Nation after meeting with CEO Michael Rapino in the Oval Office in late February, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The new story digs into the lobbying efforts and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that preceded Live Nation’s surprise settlement with the DOJ in early March, just one week into the company’s federal antitrust trial. While some co-plaintiff states signed onto that deal, many continued with the case, and a jury ultimately found Live Nation liable for operating as a monopoly in April.
The Wall Street Journal previously reported that the settlement was reached after a meeting at the White House on March 5 attended by Rapino, the company’s lawyers, and DOJ officials (including former Attorney General Pam Bondi). But Rapino had also met with Trump a few weeks earlier.
According to the report, Rapino’s Feb. 27 meeting at the Oval Office primarily centered around Trump’s efforts to overhaul the Kennedy Center, and the president’s desire to enlist Live Nation to handle the venue’s operations. But during the meeting, the president also asked Rapino why the company hadn’t settled its antitrust case with the DOJ yet. After, Trump reportedly directed the DOJ to strike a deal.
Reps for Live Nation and the White House did not immediately return requests for comment.
The DOJ’s settlement with Live Nation has drawn significant criticism, both for how the deal was reached, and the terms it contains. While it did force some concessions from Live Nation on key issues involving its amphitheater business and Ticketmaster’s exclusivity contracts, many claimed it did not go far enough to address the company’s alleged monopoly over the live entertainment industry. For instance, the plaintiff states are currently seeking to force Live Nation to divest from Ticketmaster following their victory in court.
Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs, touted the terms of the deal in a new statement shared with the WSJ. “Our critics are comparing this settlement to the irrational hope of breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster,” Wall said. “For the actual claims in this case, the DOJ and settling states got as much or more as they could have expected to win in court.”
He also defended Live Nation’s actions as it worked to reach a settlement with the DOJ: “The only reason we went above the Antitrust Division to senior DOJ leadership is because no one there would speak to us. When you’ve been unable to get a meeting for six months, you have every right to try something else.”
Live Nation made significant efforts to lobby the DOJ and Trump administration into dropping, or settling, the antitrust. The company worked closely with many people close to the president, including Kellyanne Conway and MAGA influencer-lawyer Mike Davis (who previously helped lobby the DOJ to drop its challenge to a $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard and Juniper Networks). And Trump involved himself reportedly after hearing about the case from prominent people.
According to the WSJ, Live Nation’s efforts also included hiring top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to lead its settlement talks. The Sullivan & Cromwell team reportedly included two antitrust experts, but also a lawyer named James McDonald, who had little antitrust experience, but was representing Trump in his criminal cases in New York. (In July, Trump appointed McDonald to lead the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.)
Additionally, two top political appointees at DOJ reportedly had an influence over an early set of proposed settlements. One pushed the lawyers at the antitrust division to remove language forcing Live Nation to sell Ticketmaster from a draft response; he and the other appointee also reportedly echoed talking points Live Nation had unsuccessfully tried in court.
As for the case itself, it’s now in the remedies phase, during which Judge Arun Subramanian will decide what kind of punishment Live Nation will receive. Subramanian also has to review and approve the DOJ’s settlement with Live Nation, and decide whether it was reached in the public interest. In a July letter to the judge, the plaintiff states said said they had “significant concerns” that it was not in the public interest, and asked the DOJ to share new details about how the settlement was reached.
