Live Nation has asked a New York federal judge to grant judgement against a coalition of U.S. states who succeeded in their antitrust lawsuit and jury trial against the live events company. The defense argues that the court shouldn’t be so quick to “rubberstamp the jury verdict” after the states asserted that there was “sufficient evidence only by arguing there is precious little they had to prove.” As a result, the company is asking for a new trial.

Among its points, the defense maintains that the antitrust verdict was “seriously erroneous” because the plaintiffs failed to establish objective anticompetitive market effects. Live Nation’s attorneys emphasize that the plaintiffs’ entire threats-and-retaliation case within the relevant timeline relied almost entirely on a single, isolated incident in 2021 involving the Barclays Center.

Further, they claim that the court improperly admitted five categories of highly prejudicial, out-of-market, stale, or hearsay evidence that distorted the trial and improperly swayed the jury. The jury instructions given by the court, Live Nation argues, misstated governing antitrust laws and further compounded the impact of the so-called bad evidence.

Initially filed back in 2024, the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and forty states, alongside Washington, D.C., alleged that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster violated federal and state antitrust law and has had a monopoly on the live events sector for years since its initial merger took hold in 2010. The trial kicked off in March of this year, but a settlement was suddenly and unexpectedly reached with the federal government only a week later.

But the majority of the states opted to continue the trial proceedings, and just a month later, a federal jury in New York found that Live Nation did indeed hold a monopoly and violated federal and state antitrust laws. The ultimate fallout from that result, and what that means for the future of the Live Nation and Ticketmaster marriage, remains to be seen.