The DOJ-Live Nation agreement was just recently published in the Federal Register, with a September 4th deadline for individuals, companies, and others to weigh in if so inclined.

Evidence suggests that multiple parties will have something to say about the proposed settlement, which contains noteworthy concessions but has been the target of considerable criticism. Said criticism seemingly intensified after about three dozen states scored a victory against Live Nation and Ticketmaster at trial.

These states are aggressively seeking relief – including by demanding Ticketmaster’s divestiture from Live Nation. But as we previously noted, the relief process, including an upcoming damages trial, is expected to carry on well into 2027.

More immediately, the federal judge who’s in charge of the damages determination is also overseeing a Tunney Act review of the Live Nation-DOJ settlement. Here, the court will evaluate whether the proposed deal serves the public interest – hence the comment period – before approving or denying the agreement.

To be sure, besides prepping remarks of its own, NIVA intends to unveil “a comment toolkit for members, artists, and fans.” In a statement, executive director Stephen Parker called out the “insufficient” DOJ-Live Nation deal for allegedly leaving an “illegal monopoly” intact.

“With this proposed settlement, Live Nation keeps Ticketmaster,” Parker said. “It keeps its artist management business. It keeps its festivals. It keeps its clubs and theaters. It keeps the power to package a tour, route that tour into buildings it controls, and sell every ticket to it. Those capabilities are central to the operational structure the jury found illegal, and this settlement does not address them.

“Here is what the ‘settlement’ actually does,” he continued in part. “It leaves Live Nation’s ownership, touring control, operation, booking, and ticketing in place – everywhere. It only requires divestiture of a limited number of agreed small-market amphitheaters. It caps one category of ticketing fee at buildings Live Nation owns, and does nothing to stop Live Nation from raising the ticket price, the drink price, the food price, the parking price, and other costs.”

Now, all eyes are on the public comments (which weren’t live on the Federal Register page at the time of writing) and then the judge’s decision. On one hand, Live Nation definitely isn’t without vocal detractors, and as many of the same wish to see Ticketmaster sold off, it appears safe to predict that they’ll comment accordingly.

On the other hand, it’s unclear whether splitting the companies, which the DOJ allowed to merge in the not-so-distant past, would be advisable from the precedent perspective. And it’s also unclear whether doing so would fix the mountain of scalping-fueled problems plaguing the ticketing space.

Just in passing, Ticketmaster must develop an “open distribution” system so competitors can utilize its back-end tech if so desired by major venues. And even when under exclusive primary-ticketing contracts with Ticketmaster, those venues can opt to sell a portion of their tickets via different platforms.

Meanwhile, artists playing certain Live Nation amphitheaters can sell up to half their primary tickets outside Ticketmaster; the settlement would cap amphitheater fees at 15% as well. Additionally, auto-renewing exclusive-ticketing pacts “are hereby waived and unenforceable,” and moving forward, major venues must have the option of choosing “a fully or partially non-exclusive contract.”

In other words, the settlement, likewise extending to Oak View Group arrangements, future acquisitions, and more, isn’t without teeth. Now, time will tell whether that’s enough to get the agreement over the finish line.