A showdown between Live Nation Entertainment and US government antitrust enforcers has entered the spotlight following Gail Slater’s sudden departure from her leadership perch at the US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, with California enforcers Thursday echoing previous commitments from US states to press forward with a trial scheduled to begin in March.
A showdown between Live Nation Entertainment and US government antitrust enforcers has entered the spotlight following Gail Slater’s sudden departure from her leadership perch at the US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, with California enforcers Thursday echoing previous commitments from US states to press forward with a trial scheduled to begin in March.Slater announced Thursday that she is leaving the DOJ less than a year into a rocky stint overseeing high-profile monopolization litigation and merger reviews at the division (see here).
“While the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to look out for people’s economic wellbeing — in California, we never will,” California AG Rob Bonta said in an emailed statement to MLex accusing US President Donald Trump of firing Slater.
California is one of 40 states, plus the District of Columbia, that joined the DOJ’s monopolization case against Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster (see here). “We look forward to going to trial on March 2,” California’s antitrust chief Paula Blizzard said at an event.*
The five-week trial will take place at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The DOJ did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The California enforcers’ comments came amid a spike in Live Nation’s stock price, outcry from Democratic members of Congress about rampant corruption in the Trump administration (see here and here) and criticism from sports fans, concert goers and independent venues (see here and here)
The Live Nation stock rose more than 4 percent in 11 minutes after the news hit, settling back to finish up 2.5 percent in regular trading on a day when US stocks were broadly lower.
“Sports fans smell the stench of Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s big-money bullying behind Assistant AG Slater’s removal,” Brian Hess, executive director of Sports Fans Coalition, said in a statement. “Is President Trump going soft and capitulating to Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s power grab? American sports fans certainly hope not.”
“America's sports fans hope this news doesn't mean @JusticeATR is going soft on Ticketmaster. #breakupticketmaster,” the coalition said in a response to Slater’s post on X about her departure.
— Popularity, state enforcement —
In an interview with MLex, Vic Domen, former chairman of the Multistate Antitrust Task Force of the National Association of Attorneys General, predicted the uncertainty following Slater’s departure could spur some state enforcers to be more aggressive — especially in Democratic states.
Representatives for the offices of the District of Columbia and Colorado AGs declined to comment. AGs offices in New York, Florida, Connecticut, Texas, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Minnesota did not respond to requests for comment.
"We only know what has been publicly reported," a spokesperson for the state of Washington Attorney General's Office told MLex in an email. "We are not in a position to speculate on the implications of this news."
The DOJ and states’ bid to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster has been broadly popular with the American public.That popularity has helped fuel controversies swirling around the Live Nation lobbying efforts and a late 2025 Trump pardon of Timothy Leiweke, the co-founder and former chief executive of entertainment company Oak View Group indicted by the DOJ for bid-rigging (see here).
The DOJ and states' antitrust suit includes allegations of a long-term ticketing services agreement between Live Nation and Oak View Group, a company co-founded by music mogul Irving Azoff that describes itself as Live Nation’s “pimp” and “hammer” in internal documents cited in the litigation.
“These cases are some of the most complicated litigations we have,” former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in January shortly after departing from his position (see here). “They're also some of the cases that the public cares the most about.”
While Platkin viewed the case as “the [Bruce] Springsteen case,” he also noted its popularity among Taylor Swift’s army of fans.
After ticket sales to a Taylor Swift concert crashed Ticketmaster’s website, the Live Nation subsidiary came under heavy criticism that reignited calls from antitrust watchers and lawmakers for the DOJ to break up the company (see here and here).
In December, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, said the AGs would forge ahead in March even if the DOJ chooses to drop out.
States like New York, Colorado, Texas, California and others have also not shied away from pursuing major antitrust cases on their own (see here and here). For example, California filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon in its own state court with no co-plaintiffs.
The US Federal Trade Commission and multistate coalition are also pursuing consumer protection litigation against Live Nation for profiting from online scalpers (see here).
That suit came in the wake of an executive order from Trump directing the FTC and DOJ to crack down on anticompetitive practices in ticketing (see here).
*Mastering the Antitrust Landscape hosted by Economic Partners, USC Gould School of Law, USC Marshall School of Business, and Baker McKenzie. Palo Alto, California. Feb. 12, 2026.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.