1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:12,719
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:16,239 --> 00:00:20,240
Speaker 2: Vice President Kamala Harris sealed her status as the presumptive

3
00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:25,560
Speaker 2: Democratic presidential nominee on Monday night, after crossing the magic

4
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 2: number of nineteen hundred seventy six pledge delegates, more than

5
00:00:29,960 --> 00:00:33,920
Speaker 2: enough to clinch the nomination, after an extraordinary two day

6
00:00:33,960 --> 00:00:38,280
Speaker 2: blitz that saw Harris consolidate her party's backing to challenge

7
00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:39,720
Speaker 2: Donald Trump in November.

8
00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:43,120
Speaker 3: Over the next one hundred and six days, we are

9
00:00:43,200 --> 00:00:46,440
Speaker 3: going to take our case to the American people, and

10
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:48,560
Speaker 3: we are going to win.

11
00:00:51,080 --> 00:00:53,960
Speaker 2: President. Joe Biden had won ninety nine percent of the

12
00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:58,280
Speaker 2: pledge delegates to August Democratic National Convention through a series

13
00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 2: of state primaries and calls earlier in the year, and

14
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:04,800
Speaker 2: his endorsement of Harris served as a rallying point for

15
00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:05,400
Speaker 2: the party.

16
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:07,880
Speaker 1: I'm hoping you'll give every bit of your heart and

17
00:01:07,920 --> 00:01:09,920
Speaker 1: soul that you gave to me to come on.

18
00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:13,960
Speaker 2: The Vice president took over Biden's campaign, which was renamed

19
00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:17,639
Speaker 2: Harris for President, giving her access to its war chest.

20
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:22,080
Speaker 2: Yet some Republicans, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, are raising

21
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:26,240
Speaker 2: the specter of lawsuits challenging Harris's place on the top

22
00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 2: of the ticket.

23
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:31,039
Speaker 3: We have fifty different systems in each of the states

24
00:01:31,080 --> 00:01:33,960
Speaker 3: when it comes to presidential elections and choosing electors and

25
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 3: all the rest, And in some of the states there

26
00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:39,000
Speaker 3: are impediments to just switching someone out like that. Remember

27
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:42,280
Speaker 3: that this claims to be the Party of Democracy, small

28
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:45,800
Speaker 3: d democracy right. Fourteen million people went through the process

29
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:49,160
Speaker 3: and chose this nominee, Joe Biden. Now a handful of

30
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:51,560
Speaker 3: people have gotten together and decided he's no longer suitable.

31
00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:53,600
Speaker 3: That's not how this system works, or.

32
00:01:53,520 --> 00:01:57,480
Speaker 2: As Johnson confused about how the system works. Joining me

33
00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 2: is elections law expert Richard Brefalt, professor at Columbia Law School.

34
00:02:02,280 --> 00:02:07,200
Speaker 2: So she has more than enough pledged delegates to clinch

35
00:02:07,200 --> 00:02:11,359
Speaker 2: the Democratic presidential nomination. So does that rule out any

36
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:15,280
Speaker 2: kind of an open convention or problems at the convention?

37
00:02:15,760 --> 00:02:17,600
Speaker 4: I think it will turn on the rules. I mean,

38
00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:21,120
Speaker 4: I don't think it precludes an open convention. Nobody seems

39
00:02:21,160 --> 00:02:24,119
Speaker 4: to be running against her. I mean, the way delegates

40
00:02:24,120 --> 00:02:27,080
Speaker 4: work in the Democratic Party, even if Biden were running,

41
00:02:27,320 --> 00:02:29,480
Speaker 4: the nature of the pledge is it's like an honor

42
00:02:29,520 --> 00:02:32,120
Speaker 4: pledge or a good faith pledge, so even the pledge

43
00:02:32,160 --> 00:02:35,120
Speaker 4: delegates actually could have voted for someone else. So the

44
00:02:35,160 --> 00:02:37,600
Speaker 4: fact that they've kind of announced a commitment to her,

45
00:02:38,040 --> 00:02:41,400
Speaker 4: they're not legally pledged to her, so people could change

46
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:43,400
Speaker 4: their minds. I mean, I'm not saying that's going to happen,

47
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 4: but I think the real issue is I think I

48
00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,200
Speaker 4: saw Mary Ann Williamson might have declared. I think under

49
00:02:49,240 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 4: the rules of the Democratic Party, anyone who wants to

50
00:02:51,919 --> 00:02:54,960
Speaker 4: be nominated would need to support a three hundred delegates

51
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 4: with no more than fifty from one state, And at

52
00:02:57,400 --> 00:02:59,959
Speaker 4: this point it doesn't seem like there'll be any other candidate,

53
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:02,880
Speaker 4: so I think in that sense she has it wrapped up.

54
00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:05,320
Speaker 4: None of the other prominent figures in Democratic parties have

55
00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:07,880
Speaker 4: indicated any interest in running. I think at this point

56
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:11,079
Speaker 4: they've all endorsed her, so in some sense it's technically open.

57
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:15,079
Speaker 4: But she's going to be nominated, presumably, if not by acclamation,

58
00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:17,840
Speaker 4: then by some overwhelming vote.

59
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:21,800
Speaker 2: One of the first questions is whether she can access

60
00:03:22,320 --> 00:03:24,000
Speaker 2: Biden's campaign funds.

61
00:03:24,440 --> 00:03:26,799
Speaker 4: Right, so the money is sort of in three parts,

62
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:29,480
Speaker 4: and the only real issue is the money technically that

63
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:32,600
Speaker 4: went to the Biden Harris campaign. So the money that

64
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 4: goes to the Democratic Party, of course she can use.

65
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:37,640
Speaker 4: And I think they also had a pack going, a

66
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:39,680
Speaker 4: superpack going, and of that of course they can use.

67
00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:42,680
Speaker 4: The issue was the money that they went to Biden

68
00:03:42,720 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 4: Harris specifically, and there I think it's a smaller amount,

69
00:03:46,400 --> 00:03:48,520
Speaker 4: maybe like ninety million, but I'm not sure about that.

70
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:51,440
Speaker 4: The assumption of all the campaigns and nance people I've

71
00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:54,720
Speaker 4: spoken to is yet, as long as Harris continues to

72
00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:57,440
Speaker 4: be on the ticket, it's money that she can use.

73
00:03:57,480 --> 00:03:59,840
Speaker 4: The issue would have been more if the Democrats and

74
00:03:59,880 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 4: not made someone else, then I think the Biden Harris

75
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:05,800
Speaker 4: committee would have had to transfer the money to the

76
00:04:05,840 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 4: Democratic Party and the Democratic Party would have the money.

77
00:04:09,400 --> 00:04:11,720
Speaker 4: But as long as she's the nominee, she is part

78
00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:14,040
Speaker 4: of Biden Harris, which I think now has already been

79
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:17,320
Speaker 4: renamed Harris. So the assumption of just about every campaign

80
00:04:17,480 --> 00:04:20,480
Speaker 4: finance lawyer I know is that yes, she can use it.

81
00:04:20,920 --> 00:04:23,640
Speaker 4: I think that some Republicans have made some noises about

82
00:04:23,720 --> 00:04:26,920
Speaker 4: challenging that, but I think that the overwhelming assumption has

83
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:29,720
Speaker 4: been the money went to her also it was going

84
00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:33,160
Speaker 4: to Biden and Harris. Harris is still running. So I

85
00:04:33,200 --> 00:04:36,600
Speaker 4: think that the vast majority of campaing San's lawyers and

86
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:38,880
Speaker 4: scholars believe that it's money she can use.

87
00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:43,240
Speaker 5: And I understand that even if it's challenged that the

88
00:04:43,279 --> 00:04:47,320
Speaker 5: Federal Election Commission takes so long to move that it

89
00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:49,839
Speaker 5: would just be a question of paying fines later.

90
00:04:50,279 --> 00:04:52,480
Speaker 4: Not only it takes so long to move but you

91
00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:54,920
Speaker 4: would need to get four votes, and there are three

92
00:04:54,920 --> 00:04:58,000
Speaker 4: Democrats who sit on the commission. There's a sixth member commission,

93
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:02,679
Speaker 4: three Democrats and three Republicans, and on most major things

94
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:05,200
Speaker 4: they tend to vote on party mind, So it just

95
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:07,599
Speaker 4: seems right there's both the time that would take and

96
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 4: likely vote, and I think given the rules of the

97
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:13,160
Speaker 4: federal election law, I think it will be very hard

98
00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:16,359
Speaker 4: for Republicans to sidestep the Commission and go directly to court.

99
00:05:16,880 --> 00:05:19,840
Speaker 4: Now somebody might try that, but I do think it's

100
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:23,080
Speaker 4: kind of a lost cause given the court system today.

101
00:05:23,080 --> 00:05:24,880
Speaker 4: You never know one hundred percent. But I think, as

102
00:05:24,920 --> 00:05:27,120
Speaker 4: I said, the overwhelming belief is that the money she

103
00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:30,080
Speaker 4: could use and would be very unlikely the Federal Election

104
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:33,240
Speaker 4: Commission would certainly during the course of the campaign, but

105
00:05:33,320 --> 00:05:35,839
Speaker 4: at any time come and say it was an improper use.

106
00:05:36,520 --> 00:05:40,599
Speaker 2: Speaker Mike Johnson says he expects they'll be litigation, saying

107
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:43,760
Speaker 2: there are fifty different systems and that in some states

108
00:05:43,760 --> 00:05:47,799
Speaker 2: there are impediments to swapping candidates. Could there be losses

109
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:49,080
Speaker 2: on the basis of the switch.

110
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:52,599
Speaker 4: It seems like a totally ridiculous argument. The party doesn't

111
00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:55,039
Speaker 4: have a candidate. The party doesn't have a candidate until

112
00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:58,720
Speaker 4: they make a nomination. Biden was never nominated. Democratic convention

113
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:01,760
Speaker 4: has not met. The so called virtual role call we're

114
00:06:01,760 --> 00:06:05,360
Speaker 4: talking about hasn't happened. The Democratic Party gets to decide

115
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:08,960
Speaker 4: who the Democratic Party's nominee is, and they haven't made

116
00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:11,279
Speaker 4: a choice yet. I don't think there'd be an issue

117
00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:14,159
Speaker 4: even if it was answered the nomination, because they still

118
00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:16,240
Speaker 4: get to write their own rules. Just they make it

119
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:21,160
Speaker 4: clear Biden was never the nominee. He was the presumptive nominee,

120
00:06:21,279 --> 00:06:24,600
Speaker 4: that he was never the nominee, and so there's no

121
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:29,000
Speaker 4: challenge to make. There's no substitution, no ballots had been printed,

122
00:06:29,360 --> 00:06:32,719
Speaker 4: and so it's it's totally blowing smoke.

123
00:06:33,279 --> 00:06:36,159
Speaker 2: So then what about the June twenty first memo from

124
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:40,600
Speaker 2: the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, where it says

125
00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 2: it views swing states Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin as likely

126
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:49,040
Speaker 2: arenas for pre election legal challenges because they have specific

127
00:06:49,120 --> 00:06:52,760
Speaker 2: procedures for withdrawal of a presidential nominee.

128
00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:54,880
Speaker 4: The only way there would be anything is that Biden

129
00:06:54,880 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 4: had actually been nominated, but Biden wasn't nominated. It doesn't

130
00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:01,880
Speaker 4: matter that Biden won primary there because many times a

131
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:05,560
Speaker 4: candidate who's won primary and there's upstates, whose is the nomination.

132
00:07:05,839 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 4: So the fact that Harris didn't win the primary any

133
00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:11,040
Speaker 4: of the states is irrelevant. Many candidate who are then

134
00:07:11,120 --> 00:07:14,600
Speaker 4: ultimate nominees lost some primaries, they still got to be

135
00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:17,000
Speaker 4: on the ballots of the states where they lost the primary.

136
00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:19,880
Speaker 4: So I think they might have some argument that he'd

137
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:22,360
Speaker 4: actually been nominated and she was being put in to

138
00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:25,200
Speaker 4: replace him, but he was never nominated.

139
00:07:25,640 --> 00:07:29,680
Speaker 2: Which do you see any other legal complications of her candidacy.

140
00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:33,120
Speaker 4: No, I don't, I don't. I mean, I think again,

141
00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:36,520
Speaker 4: there's a potential potential challenge on the money when it

142
00:07:36,520 --> 00:07:39,880
Speaker 4: goes from Biden Harris to Harris somebody else. But I

143
00:07:39,920 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 4: do think there it's still Harris. I think that challenge

144
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:47,240
Speaker 4: is pretty weak. There's absolutely no challenge on her being

145
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:50,320
Speaker 4: on the ballot because you say, one more time, Biden

146
00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 4: was never the nominee, so there's no issue about changing nominees.

147
00:07:54,960 --> 00:07:58,720
Speaker 4: He hadn't been nominated yet, and you know it was

148
00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:01,160
Speaker 4: not likely that he would have defeves of the convention.

149
00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:03,960
Speaker 4: But there have been contested conventions. I mean, maybe the

150
00:08:04,040 --> 00:08:07,960
Speaker 4: least truly contested one was in nineteen seventy six when

151
00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:12,360
Speaker 4: Ronald Reagan was trying to unseae Gerald Ford. He came close,

152
00:08:12,840 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 4: and if he had done that, he would have been

153
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:17,200
Speaker 4: the nominee. And the fact that had Ford with the

154
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:19,160
Speaker 4: incumbent president and had won a bunch of states and

155
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:20,960
Speaker 4: primaries would have been irrelevant.

156
00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:23,360
Speaker 2: So do you have any idea what Mike Johnson is

157
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:24,000
Speaker 2: talking about?

158
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:26,440
Speaker 4: Then I have no idea what he's talking about. I mean,

159
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:28,040
Speaker 4: I mean, some of the noise he's making is that

160
00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:32,040
Speaker 4: it's undemocratic, small d democratic. But the parties get to

161
00:08:32,040 --> 00:08:35,040
Speaker 4: write their own rules about who the nominees are. Supreme

162
00:08:35,040 --> 00:08:37,800
Speaker 4: Court has said that, going back to contested conventions in

163
00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:41,599
Speaker 4: the nineteen seventies, this is the parties are private organizations.

164
00:08:41,800 --> 00:08:43,720
Speaker 4: They get to write their own rules and to choose

165
00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:46,160
Speaker 4: their own nominees. And it looks like they're going to

166
00:08:46,240 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 4: choose to nominate Harris. If they do nominate Harris, she's

167
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:52,280
Speaker 4: the nominee. She's the one who gets on the ballot.

168
00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:55,200
Speaker 4: And if for some reason they choose to nominate somebody

169
00:08:55,280 --> 00:08:58,120
Speaker 4: else because something else happened in the next three weeks,

170
00:08:58,280 --> 00:08:59,800
Speaker 4: that person would be the nominee.

171
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:02,080
Speaker 2: And what do you think about Johnson's argument that this

172
00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:06,800
Speaker 2: violates democratic principles, that voters chose Biden in the primaries

173
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:08,359
Speaker 2: and now they're getting Harris.

174
00:09:08,679 --> 00:09:11,440
Speaker 3: There's a reason it's unprecedented. You don't just, you know,

175
00:09:11,520 --> 00:09:14,640
Speaker 3: steamroll the rules in the process because you decide that

176
00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 3: your candidate is no longer suitable.

177
00:09:16,480 --> 00:09:18,920
Speaker 4: I mean, I think, for one thing, Biden was always

178
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:22,480
Speaker 4: running with Harris as as his teammate. So to some extent,

179
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:25,080
Speaker 4: they're still getting one of their choices. But I think

180
00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:27,679
Speaker 4: in the end, remember, the winner of the primary in

181
00:09:27,720 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 4: any one state is not guaranteed or in many states.

182
00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:33,840
Speaker 4: I mean, going back to nineteen sixty eight, Hubert Humphrey

183
00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:36,800
Speaker 4: didn't run any primaries and he was the nominee. Eugene

184
00:09:36,840 --> 00:09:40,480
Speaker 4: McCarthy won more primaries than Hubert Humphrey, but Hubert Humphrey

185
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:41,200
Speaker 4: was the nominee.

186
00:09:41,559 --> 00:09:45,599
Speaker 2: Everyone agrees on one thing. This is unprecedented, But is

187
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:49,559
Speaker 2: there anything in presidential history that would be analogous.

188
00:09:49,800 --> 00:09:51,760
Speaker 4: It's hard to make an analogy where there was somebody

189
00:09:51,800 --> 00:09:57,040
Speaker 4: who was so clearly the presumptive nominee and then who

190
00:09:57,120 --> 00:09:59,400
Speaker 4: pulls out at the last minute. There have been a

191
00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 4: couple of a life where a candidate dies but that

192
00:10:02,679 --> 00:10:05,160
Speaker 4: person's already been nominated, and then there's a scrambled to

193
00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:08,280
Speaker 4: place the candidate that has happened, But I can't recall

194
00:10:08,400 --> 00:10:12,360
Speaker 4: anything like this where there was somebody who had won

195
00:10:12,400 --> 00:10:15,320
Speaker 4: all the primaries, was the presumptive nominee and then decides no,

196
00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:19,640
Speaker 4: I'm not going to run, and the party quickly rallies

197
00:10:19,640 --> 00:10:22,760
Speaker 4: around another person. But again, this is the person who

198
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:25,640
Speaker 4: was his number two. It's not a challenger who is

199
00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:30,959
Speaker 4: going to be chosen. So it is unprecedented, but it's utterly,

200
00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 4: entirely consistent with the rules. Maybe just leave it at that.

201
00:10:34,920 --> 00:10:37,400
Speaker 4: Is that again, just to make it clear, he was

202
00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:40,600
Speaker 4: never the nominee, so they're not replacing a nominee. They're

203
00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:44,000
Speaker 4: just picking a nominee. And when people were donating money,

204
00:10:44,000 --> 00:10:47,160
Speaker 4: they were donating money to Biden Harris. It looks like

205
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:49,360
Speaker 4: they're still going to get Harris.

206
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:52,679
Speaker 2: Thanks Rich for helping us clear up the confusion with

207
00:10:53,200 --> 00:10:57,200
Speaker 2: facts and legal analysis. That's Professor Richard Ruflt. Of Columbia

208
00:10:57,280 --> 00:11:00,560
Speaker 2: Law School coming up next on the Bloomberg Lall Show.

209
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:03,800
Speaker 2: Remember back in late May, when the Justice Department in

210
00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:07,440
Speaker 2: more than two dozen states filed a major anti trust

211
00:11:07,520 --> 00:11:12,400
Speaker 2: lawsuit seeking to break up Ticketmaster's owner Live Nation. Well,

212
00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:15,679
Speaker 2: Live Nation has filed its first answer to that suit,

213
00:11:16,080 --> 00:11:18,360
Speaker 2: and we'll tell you about it. I'm June Grosso and

214
00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:19,199
Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg.

215
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:27,840
Speaker 1: Ticketmaster can impose a seemingly endless list of fees on fans.

216
00:11:28,559 --> 00:11:34,960
Speaker 1: Those include ticketing fees, service fees, convenience fees, platinum fees,

217
00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:40,760
Speaker 1: price master fees, per order fees, handling fees, and payment

218
00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:43,200
Speaker 1: processing fees, among others.

219
00:11:43,559 --> 00:11:47,959
Speaker 2: Anyone who's bought concert tickets from Ticketmaster can probably relate

220
00:11:48,000 --> 00:11:52,320
Speaker 2: to Attorney General Merrick Garland's description of the seemingly endless

221
00:11:52,360 --> 00:11:56,120
Speaker 2: fees to purchase tickets. Garland said it was time for

222
00:11:56,240 --> 00:11:59,280
Speaker 2: fans and artists to stop paying the price for Live

223
00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:02,640
Speaker 2: Nations when monopoly. When the Justice Department in more than

224
00:12:02,679 --> 00:12:06,440
Speaker 2: two dozen states filed a major anti trust lawsuit in

225
00:12:06,559 --> 00:12:11,760
Speaker 2: late May, seeking the breakup of Ticketmaster's owner, Live Nation Entertainment.

226
00:12:12,400 --> 00:12:16,599
Speaker 1: Live Nation suffocates its competition using a variety of tactics,

227
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:22,200
Speaker 1: from acquisitions of smaller regional promoters and venues to threats

228
00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 1: and retaliation to agreements with rivals designed to neutralize them.

229
00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:32,959
Speaker 1: This has included acquiring or co opting key independent promoters.

230
00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:38,120
Speaker 2: Live Nation has denied its monopoly, blaming rising ticket prices

231
00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:43,120
Speaker 2: on things like increasing production costs, artists popularity, and twenty

232
00:12:43,160 --> 00:12:46,880
Speaker 2: four to seven online ticket scalping. But now Live Nation

233
00:12:47,040 --> 00:12:50,520
Speaker 2: has offered its first official response to the anti trust

234
00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:54,319
Speaker 2: claims in a letter to the federal judge overseeing the litigation,

235
00:12:54,880 --> 00:12:57,600
Speaker 2: joining me to discuss the strength of the case. And

236
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:01,680
Speaker 2: that response is antitrust ECXI, spurred Harry First, a professor

237
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:05,559
Speaker 2: at NYU Law School. Harry start by telling us about

238
00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:08,520
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Live Nation.

239
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:12,800
Speaker 6: Okay, so this is in some ways basically a suit

240
00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:16,320
Speaker 6: to correct a bad mistake the Justice Department made in

241
00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:20,199
Speaker 6: twenty ten. So it's taken them a while, but eventually

242
00:13:20,559 --> 00:13:23,240
Speaker 6: anti trust enforcers are trying to get it right. So

243
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:27,520
Speaker 6: what happened was in two thousand and nine, Ticketmaster and

244
00:13:27,679 --> 00:13:32,200
Speaker 6: Live Nation decided to merge, and the Justice Department looked

245
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:37,280
Speaker 6: at it. Ticketmaster, of course, sells ticketing services to major

246
00:13:37,360 --> 00:13:41,360
Speaker 6: venues around the country what's now called primary ticketing services.

247
00:13:41,440 --> 00:13:44,520
Speaker 6: You know, the secondary markets weren't so developed then, I

248
00:13:44,520 --> 00:13:47,559
Speaker 6: don't think, you know, reselling, and Live Nation was the

249
00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 6: biggest promoter at the time and was about to sort

250
00:13:51,520 --> 00:13:55,440
Speaker 6: of entered the ticketing market. But basically this was what's

251
00:13:55,480 --> 00:13:58,959
Speaker 6: referred to as a vertical merger, not really competitors or

252
00:13:59,080 --> 00:14:03,720
Speaker 6: not much competitor yet, but at the time, the Justice

253
00:14:03,760 --> 00:14:08,240
Speaker 6: Department understood what was going on. So Live Nation, which

254
00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:14,000
Speaker 6: was a big promoter and booker of venues, wanted to

255
00:14:14,000 --> 00:14:19,520
Speaker 6: put its shows into venues that would use Ticketmaster ticketing.

256
00:14:20,360 --> 00:14:23,880
Speaker 6: So the venues knew that if they wanted to get

257
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 6: you know, a really good show, the best way to

258
00:14:27,080 --> 00:14:31,760
Speaker 6: do it was to use Ticketmaster because they really needed

259
00:14:31,880 --> 00:14:36,680
Speaker 6: Live Nations talent. So Live Nation, as a promoter of

260
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:41,360
Speaker 6: you know, major tours, thought that this tie up would

261
00:14:41,760 --> 00:14:45,360
Speaker 6: sort of help both businesses, as did Ticketmaster. It would

262
00:14:45,680 --> 00:14:49,400
Speaker 6: give Ticketmaster and edge you know, over competitors in the

263
00:14:49,440 --> 00:14:53,920
Speaker 6: ticketing business, and it would increase Live Nations revenues because

264
00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:58,400
Speaker 6: now they owned a ticketing company. So control the talent,

265
00:14:58,920 --> 00:15:03,560
Speaker 6: control entry or choice of the venues, and you control ticketing.

266
00:15:04,200 --> 00:15:07,640
Speaker 6: So at the time, the Justice Department knew this, there

267
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:12,840
Speaker 6: was testimony about this, and also Ticketmaster had, you know,

268
00:15:12,880 --> 00:15:16,480
Speaker 6: in major venues, a major share of the market, maybe

269
00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:20,000
Speaker 6: seventy or so percent. You can argue over what exactly

270
00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:23,400
Speaker 6: it was. So they had a dominant or monopoly position

271
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:28,280
Speaker 6: at the time. But instead of saying you can't merge,

272
00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:32,360
Speaker 6: they said, hey, go ahead and merge. Okay, we've got

273
00:15:32,360 --> 00:15:35,640
Speaker 6: some conditions for you. First, help a company is trying

274
00:15:35,640 --> 00:15:38,200
Speaker 6: to get into the ticketing business, get into it through

275
00:15:38,240 --> 00:15:40,880
Speaker 6: some software. Okay, that was one idea. The second thing

276
00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:46,080
Speaker 6: is we'll tell Live Nations that they can't condition their talents,

277
00:15:46,280 --> 00:15:50,240
Speaker 6: you know, with venues on using Ticketmaster, they can't make

278
00:15:50,280 --> 00:15:53,800
Speaker 6: that a condition, and they can't retaliate against the venue

279
00:15:54,040 --> 00:15:57,720
Speaker 6: if that venue subsequently decides to use a ticketing company.

280
00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:02,760
Speaker 6: So no conditioning, no retaliation. Fine. We think this is wonderful.

281
00:16:02,960 --> 00:16:06,560
Speaker 6: Parties merge. The new entrant turns out never does well

282
00:16:07,080 --> 00:16:10,840
Speaker 6: and almost from the beginning they violate the decree, and

283
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:14,400
Speaker 6: in fact, they don't have to actually violate it because

284
00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:19,720
Speaker 6: every promoter, every venue owner knows what the deal is.

285
00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:24,320
Speaker 6: You know, give Live Nation the ticketing revenue, you're more

286
00:16:24,480 --> 00:16:27,760
Speaker 6: likely you're going to get the good tours into your venue.

287
00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:31,240
Speaker 6: And there's a lot of competition for that. So this

288
00:16:31,400 --> 00:16:35,800
Speaker 6: decree never worked. It didn't work because the parties violated.

289
00:16:35,880 --> 00:16:38,920
Speaker 6: There were later proceedings because it looked like they were

290
00:16:39,000 --> 00:16:41,760
Speaker 6: violating it, and then kame Taylor Swift.

291
00:16:42,360 --> 00:16:46,480
Speaker 2: Referring of course to the website crashing, et cetera, et cetera,

292
00:16:46,480 --> 00:16:46,960
Speaker 2: et cetera.

293
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:51,040
Speaker 6: Oh, that was the push and hearings in the Senate,

294
00:16:51,080 --> 00:16:54,480
Speaker 6: Amy Klobashar and so forth. That was the push that

295
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:57,840
Speaker 6: finally pushed the Justice Department. And this has been a

296
00:16:57,840 --> 00:17:02,520
Speaker 6: pretty aggressive Justice Department on any trust to say, you know,

297
00:17:03,160 --> 00:17:08,120
Speaker 6: just really, almost fifteen years, it just didn't work and

298
00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:11,440
Speaker 6: it's time to do something about it. So the lawsuit

299
00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:15,399
Speaker 6: we see now is the Justice Department saying, you know,

300
00:17:15,840 --> 00:17:21,240
Speaker 6: Ticketmaster has a monopoly position in primary ticketing services, and

301
00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:25,600
Speaker 6: it's solidified by this, you know, being owned by Live Nation.

302
00:17:26,119 --> 00:17:30,200
Speaker 6: We've got to stop it, declare them monopoly, and.

303
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:33,560
Speaker 2: Then break them up is tying an anti trust term?

304
00:17:33,840 --> 00:17:36,440
Speaker 2: Will you explain what it means? In this context?

305
00:17:37,080 --> 00:17:39,920
Speaker 6: Tying is an anti trust term. And so there is

306
00:17:40,080 --> 00:17:43,200
Speaker 6: in the Justice Department's complaint, which is joined by a

307
00:17:43,240 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 6: lot of states. By the way, there is in this

308
00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:50,080
Speaker 6: complaint not just a complaint about the monopolization of the

309
00:17:50,080 --> 00:17:53,919
Speaker 6: ticketing markets and large venues. There's a complaint about a

310
00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:59,439
Speaker 6: tying arrangement in here that involves the talent itself. So

311
00:17:59,480 --> 00:18:03,040
Speaker 6: a tying arrangement is basically, you have two products. A

312
00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:06,520
Speaker 6: seller says, if you want my A product, guess what

313
00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:09,439
Speaker 6: you've got to take B So you know, I don't know.

314
00:18:09,480 --> 00:18:11,520
Speaker 6: If you want my car, you got to take my tires.

315
00:18:11,560 --> 00:18:14,199
Speaker 6: There's always a question of what two products are. But

316
00:18:14,280 --> 00:18:17,640
Speaker 6: that's the basic of a tying arrangement, and the Justice

317
00:18:17,680 --> 00:18:22,920
Speaker 6: Department alleges that talent knows. There's this talent promoting services

318
00:18:22,960 --> 00:18:27,120
Speaker 6: market that Live Nation also is involved in. So if

319
00:18:27,119 --> 00:18:30,200
Speaker 6: you want those promotion services, you've got to be sure

320
00:18:30,240 --> 00:18:33,520
Speaker 6: to be booked into the proper venues that, of course

321
00:18:33,520 --> 00:18:38,000
Speaker 6: are using Ticketmaster. This is part of the complaint, and

322
00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:41,280
Speaker 6: it's a part that the defendant Ticketmaster a lot of

323
00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:46,119
Speaker 6: nation says it might move to dismiss, but frankly, it

324
00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:49,480
Speaker 6: seems like a rather minor part of the complaint. The

325
00:18:49,560 --> 00:18:53,600
Speaker 6: big part is their monopolization claim, and the big relief

326
00:18:54,040 --> 00:18:57,639
Speaker 6: is to break up the company. So tying can be

327
00:18:57,720 --> 00:19:02,000
Speaker 6: a problem, and it's historically a problem, but it's not

328
00:19:02,359 --> 00:19:05,760
Speaker 6: the central problem of this piece of litigation.

329
00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 2: And what you're referring to there is that they're at

330
00:19:09,240 --> 00:19:13,160
Speaker 2: the motion to dismiss stage, and the judge asked Live

331
00:19:13,320 --> 00:19:18,200
Speaker 2: Nation to identify issues that it might contemplate a motion

332
00:19:18,359 --> 00:19:24,199
Speaker 2: to dismiss on. Live Nation's letter in response was pretty narrow.

333
00:19:24,680 --> 00:19:26,560
Speaker 2: What did you think of the response?

334
00:19:29,640 --> 00:19:36,320
Speaker 6: Not much? I mean, okay, it involves a little more

335
00:19:36,400 --> 00:19:41,159
Speaker 6: factual analysis of who's force to do. Was basically a

336
00:19:41,240 --> 00:19:45,120
Speaker 6: compelled arrangement, and in fact, it came out of cases

337
00:19:45,160 --> 00:19:50,960
Speaker 6: where a company had a machine that deposited salt tablets

338
00:19:51,000 --> 00:19:54,680
Speaker 6: into canned products, and they said, well, if you want

339
00:19:54,680 --> 00:19:57,600
Speaker 6: this machine, we have a patent on so you've got

340
00:19:57,600 --> 00:19:59,920
Speaker 6: to have a machine. You've got to buy salt from.

341
00:20:00,440 --> 00:20:05,480
Speaker 6: Salt was the tied product, and the machine, which they

342
00:20:05,520 --> 00:20:09,040
Speaker 6: had some monopoly power over, was the tieing product, and

343
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:12,159
Speaker 6: that's where the idea came that this was anti competitive

344
00:20:12,200 --> 00:20:16,760
Speaker 6: because it's stopped competition in the B market, the tide

345
00:20:17,160 --> 00:20:21,280
Speaker 6: product market salt. So, you know, is this a problem here?

346
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:23,439
Speaker 6: Maybe this is going to depend on the facts, but

347
00:20:23,600 --> 00:20:26,959
Speaker 6: not the critical problem. So I was a little They

348
00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:29,480
Speaker 6: haven't made their motion yet and it's a little I

349
00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:32,800
Speaker 6: don't know what they're doing with this particular part. They

350
00:20:32,800 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 6: are trying to move the case to a different court,

351
00:20:35,960 --> 00:20:39,520
Speaker 6: so maybe they don't want to, you know, reveal their

352
00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:42,439
Speaker 6: entire legal strategy at the moment. I really don't know,

353
00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:45,880
Speaker 6: but they're trying to change where the case is going

354
00:20:45,920 --> 00:20:48,160
Speaker 6: to be tried from New York to DC.

355
00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:50,639
Speaker 2: Yeah, why do they want to change? I mean, do

356
00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:53,199
Speaker 2: they think they'll have more luck in DC than in

357
00:20:53,240 --> 00:20:53,720
Speaker 2: New York?

358
00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:58,400
Speaker 6: I knew you were going to ask me that. And

359
00:20:58,480 --> 00:21:01,240
Speaker 6: I'm not really sure why they want to change. It's

360
00:21:01,240 --> 00:21:03,640
Speaker 6: going to change the venue, as you know, I'm not

361
00:21:03,720 --> 00:21:07,160
Speaker 6: really sure why they want to do that flow things down.

362
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:11,120
Speaker 6: Maybe they're dissatisfied with this particular judge. They know who

363
00:21:11,119 --> 00:21:15,040
Speaker 6: they've got here. Maybe the docket is slower in DC.

364
00:21:15,400 --> 00:21:18,000
Speaker 6: They've got a lot of cases there. Part of it

365
00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:22,520
Speaker 6: may be related to their effort to dismiss the state claims.

366
00:21:23,040 --> 00:21:27,520
Speaker 6: So the states are asking for damages, not clear which states,

367
00:21:27,520 --> 00:21:31,480
Speaker 6: but under their state law. And there's now precedent in

368
00:21:31,560 --> 00:21:35,359
Speaker 6: the DC Circuit which takes a somewhat dim view of

369
00:21:35,800 --> 00:21:40,560
Speaker 6: these kinds of state claims in any trust cases case

370
00:21:40,600 --> 00:21:44,760
Speaker 6: that involves the Facebook litigation in the District of Columbia,

371
00:21:45,320 --> 00:21:48,600
Speaker 6: So maybe they feel they have a better chance of

372
00:21:48,640 --> 00:21:52,560
Speaker 6: getting those state claims dismissed there. And the state claims

373
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:56,719
Speaker 6: also come with a request for a jury trial. So

374
00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:01,640
Speaker 6: hard for me to know exactly, you know, what all

375
00:22:01,760 --> 00:22:04,840
Speaker 6: is going on. And I mean, obviously people don't ask

376
00:22:04,880 --> 00:22:07,480
Speaker 6: for change of venue unless they think they'll be better

377
00:22:07,520 --> 00:22:10,600
Speaker 6: off someplace else. But I'm not quite sure why they

378
00:22:10,680 --> 00:22:11,120
Speaker 6: think that.

379
00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:15,520
Speaker 2: And so in this letter to the judge they try

380
00:22:15,560 --> 00:22:19,440
Speaker 2: to knock out the state claims in different ways. Are

381
00:22:19,480 --> 00:22:22,760
Speaker 2: they trying to avoid a jury trial in a case

382
00:22:22,920 --> 00:22:27,120
Speaker 2: like this where I mean, who hasn't been aggrieved by

383
00:22:28,119 --> 00:22:28,879
Speaker 2: ticket Master?

384
00:22:29,160 --> 00:22:31,600
Speaker 6: You mean you think the jury might not be too sympathetic,

385
00:22:31,800 --> 00:22:33,960
Speaker 6: That's what I'm thinking. But that's what I'm thinking.

386
00:22:35,640 --> 00:22:39,000
Speaker 2: Whether you're a fan of Taylor Swift, Bruce Bringsteen all.

387
00:22:38,880 --> 00:22:42,320
Speaker 6: The way back, right, Yeah, that's a good instinct. I

388
00:22:42,359 --> 00:22:44,960
Speaker 6: think on this they really would not want to have

389
00:22:45,040 --> 00:22:47,800
Speaker 6: to present this case to a jury. And the claim

390
00:22:47,840 --> 00:22:52,080
Speaker 6: for damages seems it's a little vague, which the defendant

391
00:22:52,520 --> 00:22:55,199
Speaker 6: does say, and I think correctly, you know, not that

392
00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:58,280
Speaker 6: they can't be made less vague. But if there's not

393
00:22:58,359 --> 00:23:02,040
Speaker 6: a claim for damages, then the case gets tried before

394
00:23:02,080 --> 00:23:05,280
Speaker 6: a judge, and you just hope, I guess that the

395
00:23:05,359 --> 00:23:10,720
Speaker 6: judges never bought a ticket that's a stress to an event,

396
00:23:11,320 --> 00:23:13,359
Speaker 6: So you know that's part of it. Now. If it

397
00:23:13,400 --> 00:23:16,000
Speaker 6: doesn't get moved them, they're gonna make the same claims

398
00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:19,280
Speaker 6: in New York. And you know they've already cited the

399
00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:23,360
Speaker 6: DC circuit case. But you know it's stronger if it's

400
00:23:23,359 --> 00:23:25,679
Speaker 6: in a circuit in which you're litigating, not in a

401
00:23:25,960 --> 00:23:26,760
Speaker 6: sister circuit.

402
00:23:27,680 --> 00:23:30,200
Speaker 2: Stay with me. Harry, coming up next on the Bloomberg

403
00:23:30,280 --> 00:23:34,040
Speaker 2: Law Show, Live Nation says the lawsuit won't solve the

404
00:23:34,080 --> 00:23:38,840
Speaker 2: issues fans care about and how antitrust enforcement will change

405
00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:45,200
Speaker 2: with a different administration. In January, we're discussing the Justice

406
00:23:45,240 --> 00:23:48,880
Speaker 2: Department's anti trust suit against ticket Master and its parent company,

407
00:23:48,960 --> 00:23:52,760
Speaker 2: Live Nation, accusing them of running an illegal monopoly over

408
00:23:52,920 --> 00:23:57,119
Speaker 2: Live concerts. I've been talking to anti trust expert Harry First,

409
00:23:57,160 --> 00:24:01,080
Speaker 2: a professor at n YU Law School. The Nation's legal

410
00:24:01,119 --> 00:24:03,879
Speaker 2: team was saying that the government has no right to

411
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:07,960
Speaker 2: force it to do business with competing promoters in buildings

412
00:24:08,040 --> 00:24:08,720
Speaker 2: that it owns.

413
00:24:09,560 --> 00:24:12,520
Speaker 6: I guess, you know, you can say it. They can't

414
00:24:12,560 --> 00:24:16,600
Speaker 6: force them to do business, but they're forcing others to

415
00:24:16,680 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 6: do business. They're forcing their customers, they're forcing the artists

416
00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:24,120
Speaker 6: to do business. Now they claim that the artists don't

417
00:24:24,119 --> 00:24:26,560
Speaker 6: have a say on which venue is used. I don't

418
00:24:26,600 --> 00:24:29,960
Speaker 6: know enough of the facts on that particular wrinkle of

419
00:24:30,000 --> 00:24:33,080
Speaker 6: the case. My guess is that in practice it's a

420
00:24:33,080 --> 00:24:37,399
Speaker 6: lot more complicated. But I think the tying part is

421
00:24:37,640 --> 00:24:42,000
Speaker 6: whatever the merits of their claim, which is overdrawn as

422
00:24:42,040 --> 00:24:44,960
Speaker 6: a bit, But whatever those merits, it doesn't really go

423
00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:49,280
Speaker 6: to the heart of what the competition problem is here

424
00:24:49,760 --> 00:24:52,800
Speaker 6: and what the government is asking for, which does go to,

425
00:24:53,119 --> 00:24:57,040
Speaker 6: you know, to what for them a very successful business model,

426
00:24:57,480 --> 00:25:00,639
Speaker 6: even if it's not a great business model from the

427
00:25:00,680 --> 00:25:03,639
Speaker 6: point of view of consumers or venues which you know,

428
00:25:03,840 --> 00:25:08,840
Speaker 6: are forced to use ticket masters not so great ticketing services.

429
00:25:09,359 --> 00:25:14,959
Speaker 2: Live Nation claims that this lawsuit won't solve what fans

430
00:25:15,000 --> 00:25:18,439
Speaker 2: care about most, relating to ticket prices, service fees, and

431
00:25:18,520 --> 00:25:22,160
Speaker 2: access to in demand shows. They say that factors from

432
00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 2: increasing production costs to artist's popularity to twenty four to

433
00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:31,360
Speaker 2: seven online ticket scalping are responsible for higher ticket prices.

434
00:25:31,440 --> 00:25:33,720
Speaker 6: Well, you know, I mean, it won't cure cancer either,

435
00:25:34,200 --> 00:25:36,640
Speaker 6: but I mean that's sort of in some ways it's

436
00:25:36,640 --> 00:25:40,160
Speaker 6: a ridiculous statement. Of course, it doesn't cure those other things.

437
00:25:40,520 --> 00:25:44,600
Speaker 6: But if a ticketmaster is able to charge monopoly prices

438
00:25:44,600 --> 00:25:48,240
Speaker 6: for ticketing services, they're charging higher prices and this is

439
00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:52,200
Speaker 6: all folded into what consumers pay, so you know, they

440
00:25:52,200 --> 00:25:55,760
Speaker 6: don't charge highers prices. That's the argument for you know,

441
00:25:56,040 --> 00:26:00,880
Speaker 6: what a monopolist does and consumers pay it. So the

442
00:26:00,920 --> 00:26:05,359
Speaker 6: idea that it won't completely solve high prices, of course,

443
00:26:05,400 --> 00:26:08,560
Speaker 6: that's true. There are a lot of other factors that

444
00:26:08,640 --> 00:26:11,240
Speaker 6: go into you know, what it costs you to go

445
00:26:11,359 --> 00:26:15,320
Speaker 6: to one of these events, and you know ticketing is

446
00:26:15,359 --> 00:26:17,679
Speaker 6: one of them, but it is one of them. So

447
00:26:18,280 --> 00:26:20,879
Speaker 6: that seems to me a sort of argument that is

448
00:26:20,960 --> 00:26:24,480
Speaker 6: more made for newspapers than really for a serious legal

449
00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:25,719
Speaker 6: argument court.

450
00:26:26,040 --> 00:26:29,159
Speaker 2: You mentioned DOJ wants a breakup of the company, and

451
00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:31,720
Speaker 2: that's a drastic remedy. But I've heard it said, well,

452
00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:34,600
Speaker 2: it's drastic, but if it works anywhere, it should be here.

453
00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:37,840
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, in many ways this is I mean,

454
00:26:38,080 --> 00:26:40,000
Speaker 6: I don't know for sure because they don't know the

455
00:26:40,040 --> 00:26:43,679
Speaker 6: inner workings of how integrated the firms are. But this

456
00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:48,240
Speaker 6: should be a case where it's relatively easy, relatively being

457
00:26:48,240 --> 00:26:52,640
Speaker 6: the keyword to break the company up because they do

458
00:26:52,720 --> 00:26:56,720
Speaker 6: operate as at least public Facing has two separate companies.

459
00:26:56,760 --> 00:27:00,240
Speaker 6: They do two separate things. They're in separate market that

460
00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:04,639
Speaker 6: are linked, but they used to operate separately before and

461
00:27:04,840 --> 00:27:09,000
Speaker 6: presumably could operate separately again. So I think you're right.

462
00:27:09,400 --> 00:27:11,720
Speaker 6: This is a case where, you know, restructuring of the

463
00:27:11,800 --> 00:27:15,760
Speaker 6: company sounds like it is doable. The question is whether

464
00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:20,600
Speaker 6: that's going to change Ticketmaster's monopoly position or not. And

465
00:27:21,119 --> 00:27:23,240
Speaker 6: that's sort of the next step. So you could break

466
00:27:23,280 --> 00:27:26,280
Speaker 6: them up, but you know, how much will that increase

467
00:27:26,320 --> 00:27:27,760
Speaker 6: competition in itself?

468
00:27:28,800 --> 00:27:32,919
Speaker 2: Can live Nation use the fact that the DOJ allowed

469
00:27:32,920 --> 00:27:35,680
Speaker 2: the merger to proceed in the first place, and then

470
00:27:36,240 --> 00:27:40,560
Speaker 2: agreed to extend the initial consent decree as recently as

471
00:27:40,560 --> 00:27:44,480
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen, even after it found that live nation repeatedly

472
00:27:44,720 --> 00:27:46,880
Speaker 2: violated the decree.

473
00:27:47,720 --> 00:27:50,000
Speaker 6: Can they use that as an argument? They are doing that,

474
00:27:50,080 --> 00:27:52,879
Speaker 6: I think, and they will make that argument. Is it

475
00:27:52,920 --> 00:27:55,600
Speaker 6: a good legal argument? I really don't think so. There

476
00:27:56,359 --> 00:27:59,600
Speaker 6: is not what's called in the stoppel against the government.

477
00:27:59,640 --> 00:28:04,720
Speaker 6: The government is able to and free to change its

478
00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:08,119
Speaker 6: policy as it sees how it works. There are older

479
00:28:08,200 --> 00:28:12,480
Speaker 6: cases in which you know, the government accepted this particular remedy,

480
00:28:12,880 --> 00:28:15,919
Speaker 6: the remedy didn't work out. The district court judge in

481
00:28:15,960 --> 00:28:18,560
Speaker 6: fact in that older case said, see, I can't change

482
00:28:18,560 --> 00:28:22,840
Speaker 6: this decree. You entered it, and the Supreme Court said, no,

483
00:28:23,359 --> 00:28:26,680
Speaker 6: you can. It didn't work. Ten years you had a

484
00:28:26,800 --> 00:28:29,040
Speaker 6: chance for this to work and it didn't bring competition.

485
00:28:29,359 --> 00:28:32,679
Speaker 6: Ten years is long enough. So I don't think in

486
00:28:32,720 --> 00:28:35,800
Speaker 6: the end that's really a good argument. And I do

487
00:28:35,960 --> 00:28:40,120
Speaker 6: disagree with the idea that the Justice Department approved the merger.

488
00:28:40,600 --> 00:28:45,600
Speaker 6: Justice Department never approves mergers. It decides what it will

489
00:28:45,640 --> 00:28:49,280
Speaker 6: do in terms of bringing a lawsuit, and it may

490
00:28:49,320 --> 00:28:52,600
Speaker 6: decide not to sue, or it may decide to settle

491
00:28:52,600 --> 00:28:55,120
Speaker 6: a claim in a particular way, but it doesn't approve it.

492
00:28:55,520 --> 00:29:00,520
Speaker 6: Everybody knows it, and you know, things change and don't

493
00:29:00,520 --> 00:29:04,360
Speaker 6: work out, and they don't bind successive governments forever.

494
00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:08,000
Speaker 2: So it sounds like you think that the Justice Department

495
00:29:08,080 --> 00:29:09,560
Speaker 2: has the better case here.

496
00:29:10,160 --> 00:29:13,680
Speaker 6: I do. I do so, of course, as they say,

497
00:29:14,240 --> 00:29:17,080
Speaker 6: we'll see what happens. But you know, you never know

498
00:29:17,120 --> 00:29:19,160
Speaker 6: in litigation. You know, they're still going to have to

499
00:29:19,240 --> 00:29:24,120
Speaker 6: prove exactly what the market is and what Ticketmaster's market

500
00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:26,880
Speaker 6: share is, and you know, they've got to distinguish between

501
00:29:26,920 --> 00:29:31,080
Speaker 6: the primary market and resale market and what Live Nation's

502
00:29:31,240 --> 00:29:34,760
Speaker 6: position is, and you know, whether there's a large arena market.

503
00:29:34,800 --> 00:29:37,520
Speaker 6: There are a lot of technical things that you know,

504
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:40,360
Speaker 6: still have to be worked out in the context of

505
00:29:40,400 --> 00:29:44,280
Speaker 6: the litigation. But on the surface, at least on of course,

506
00:29:44,280 --> 00:29:46,720
Speaker 6: there's only one side. We have the you know, the

507
00:29:46,920 --> 00:29:51,320
Speaker 6: complaint filed by the Justice Department and a large number

508
00:29:51,360 --> 00:29:54,680
Speaker 6: of states, so we have one view of the allegations.

509
00:29:54,760 --> 00:30:00,959
Speaker 6: But the defendants certainly have defended this position, and you know,

510
00:30:01,200 --> 00:30:04,160
Speaker 6: their position in this industry for a long time. They've

511
00:30:04,160 --> 00:30:07,200
Speaker 6: faced these allegations. So we'll see.

512
00:30:07,440 --> 00:30:10,680
Speaker 2: Do you see a star studded cast at the trial.

513
00:30:12,320 --> 00:30:14,880
Speaker 6: I don't know. It's a great question. I hadn't really

514
00:30:15,200 --> 00:30:18,680
Speaker 6: thought about that. I think even judges can be starstruck

515
00:30:18,760 --> 00:30:22,200
Speaker 6: by Taylor Swift, so I don't know. The Attorney General

516
00:30:22,240 --> 00:30:23,680
Speaker 6: is apparently a big swiftye.

517
00:30:23,720 --> 00:30:27,360
Speaker 2: So really I go more for Springsteen. But still, I mean,

518
00:30:27,360 --> 00:30:29,120
Speaker 2: how long could this take?

519
00:30:29,440 --> 00:30:29,760
Speaker 5: Years?

520
00:30:30,080 --> 00:30:32,240
Speaker 6: So look, looking at it from the defendant's point of view,

521
00:30:32,280 --> 00:30:35,200
Speaker 6: the longer the better. So they're making money off of

522
00:30:35,240 --> 00:30:38,680
Speaker 6: this deal, and you know, if the Justice Department's right,

523
00:30:39,120 --> 00:30:41,480
Speaker 6: they shouldn't be in any hurry to get through it

524
00:30:41,520 --> 00:30:44,040
Speaker 6: because while it's going on, they're still in a great

525
00:30:44,120 --> 00:30:48,040
Speaker 6: market position and still getting those high prices you know,

526
00:30:48,160 --> 00:30:51,560
Speaker 6: in ticketing services. So you know, I don't expect them

527
00:30:51,560 --> 00:30:55,520
Speaker 6: to be asking for quick resolution, and they're not. They're

528
00:30:55,560 --> 00:30:58,760
Speaker 6: trying to move the trial. They're filing letters rather than

529
00:30:58,840 --> 00:31:01,840
Speaker 6: motions to the smith. So it will be a while.

530
00:31:02,000 --> 00:31:06,200
Speaker 6: Anti trust litigation tends to take a while, and you know,

531
00:31:06,280 --> 00:31:10,200
Speaker 6: it could be years or at least a year. There's

532
00:31:10,320 --> 00:31:12,120
Speaker 6: a lot to do and a lot to go through

533
00:31:12,200 --> 00:31:15,440
Speaker 6: their economy, know, all sorts of things, and there's an election.

534
00:31:16,440 --> 00:31:19,960
Speaker 2: So that brings me to my big picture question. You know,

535
00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:23,840
Speaker 2: you mentioned the Biden administration has been i'll say incredibly

536
00:31:23,840 --> 00:31:28,040
Speaker 2: aggressive in the anti trust area, bringing lawsuits. If there's

537
00:31:28,080 --> 00:31:31,080
Speaker 2: a Trump administration, will it be very different?

538
00:31:31,560 --> 00:31:37,160
Speaker 6: My first answer is, whichever administration takes over in January

539
00:31:37,160 --> 00:31:40,320
Speaker 6: of twenty twenty five, things will be different. Things always

540
00:31:40,360 --> 00:31:44,000
Speaker 6: are different. There'll be different leadership, it will stagger is

541
00:31:44,040 --> 00:31:47,000
Speaker 6: sort to be feathered in in a way at the

542
00:31:47,040 --> 00:31:51,400
Speaker 6: Federal Trade Commission as terms run out or maybe commissioners resign,

543
00:31:51,960 --> 00:31:55,360
Speaker 6: they'll be I assume a new head of the Anti

544
00:31:55,360 --> 00:31:58,280
Speaker 6: Trust Division, There'll be a new attorney general. It's going

545
00:31:58,320 --> 00:32:00,880
Speaker 6: to be a new administration. And will they do things

546
00:32:00,920 --> 00:32:04,160
Speaker 6: exactly as things are done now? Presumably not. They'll put

547
00:32:04,200 --> 00:32:08,600
Speaker 6: their own stamp on it. What a Trump administration stamp

548
00:32:08,640 --> 00:32:12,680
Speaker 6: might be, I really don't know, because there are contradictory

549
00:32:13,520 --> 00:32:19,400
Speaker 6: policy themes running around within that thing that we call

550
00:32:20,160 --> 00:32:23,480
Speaker 6: MAGA or whatever we want to call it. So in

551
00:32:23,520 --> 00:32:28,440
Speaker 6: some ways anti trust under Trump did some heavy enforcement things,

552
00:32:28,680 --> 00:32:31,040
Speaker 6: and in some ways they didn't. So it's hard to

553
00:32:31,080 --> 00:32:35,640
Speaker 6: know where that trend is going to go and how

554
00:32:35,640 --> 00:32:38,200
Speaker 6: it might show up. But of course you would predict

555
00:32:38,680 --> 00:32:41,160
Speaker 6: things will likely be different. Would they be different with

556
00:32:41,240 --> 00:32:45,360
Speaker 6: this case? Would this case settle more easily with the

557
00:32:45,400 --> 00:32:49,239
Speaker 6: new administration? So that too is that's hard to know.

558
00:32:49,360 --> 00:32:51,880
Speaker 6: I think it's a good, solid anti trust case. Is

559
00:32:51,880 --> 00:32:54,520
Speaker 6: not a crazy any trust case. Not crazy in the

560
00:32:54,560 --> 00:32:59,880
Speaker 6: sense that it's not trying something that's unusual for anti trust.

561
00:33:00,600 --> 00:33:03,600
Speaker 6: It's pretty much in you might say, the wheelhouse of

562
00:33:03,640 --> 00:33:06,320
Speaker 6: any trust and what it should be. So you know,

563
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:09,880
Speaker 6: we'll see. But remember the original deal was in the

564
00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:13,640
Speaker 6: Obama administration, so it's hard to pin labels on these,

565
00:33:14,080 --> 00:33:16,560
Speaker 6: but we do. But we do, I know, because it

566
00:33:16,600 --> 00:33:17,360
Speaker 6: makes it fun.

567
00:33:17,600 --> 00:33:20,520
Speaker 2: Well, it's always fun to talk to you and always enlightening.

568
00:33:20,640 --> 00:33:25,360
Speaker 2: Thanks so much. That's Professor Harry First of NYU Law School.

569
00:33:25,680 --> 00:33:28,320
Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

570
00:33:28,680 --> 00:33:31,040
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

571
00:33:31,120 --> 00:33:34,920
Speaker 2: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

572
00:33:35,200 --> 00:33:39,040
Speaker 2: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

573
00:33:39,120 --> 00:33:41,560
Speaker 2: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg