WEBVTT - Harris Legal Challenges & Live Nation Antitrust

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:12.719
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:16.239 --> 0:00:20.240
<v Speaker 2>Vice President Kamala Harris sealed her status as the presumptive

0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:25.560
<v Speaker 2>Democratic presidential nominee on Monday night, after crossing the magic

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:29.840
<v Speaker 2>number of nineteen hundred seventy six pledge delegates, more than

0:00:29.960 --> 0:00:33.920
<v Speaker 2>enough to clinch the nomination, after an extraordinary two day

0:00:33.960 --> 0:00:38.280
<v Speaker 2>blitz that saw Harris consolidate her party's backing to challenge

0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump in November.

0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:43.120
<v Speaker 3>Over the next one hundred and six days, we are

0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:46.440
<v Speaker 3>going to take our case to the American people, and

0:00:46.520 --> 0:00:48.560
<v Speaker 3>we are going to win.

0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:53.960
<v Speaker 2>President. Joe Biden had won ninety nine percent of the

0:00:54.000 --> 0:00:58.280
<v Speaker 2>pledge delegates to August Democratic National Convention through a series

0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:01.720
<v Speaker 2>of state primaries and calls earlier in the year, and

0:01:01.800 --> 0:01:04.800
<v Speaker 2>his endorsement of Harris served as a rallying point for

0:01:04.880 --> 0:01:05.400
<v Speaker 2>the party.

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:07.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm hoping you'll give every bit of your heart and

0:01:07.920 --> 0:01:09.920
<v Speaker 1>soul that you gave to me to come on.

0:01:10.400 --> 0:01:13.960
<v Speaker 2>The Vice president took over Biden's campaign, which was renamed

0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:17.639
<v Speaker 2>Harris for President, giving her access to its war chest.

0:01:18.120 --> 0:01:22.080
<v Speaker 2>Yet some Republicans, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, are raising

0:01:22.120 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 2>the specter of lawsuits challenging Harris's place on the top

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:26.880
<v Speaker 2>of the ticket.

0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:31.039
<v Speaker 3>We have fifty different systems in each of the states

0:01:31.080 --> 0:01:33.960
<v Speaker 3>when it comes to presidential elections and choosing electors and

0:01:34.000 --> 0:01:35.840
<v Speaker 3>all the rest, And in some of the states there

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:39.000
<v Speaker 3>are impediments to just switching someone out like that. Remember

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 3>that this claims to be the Party of Democracy, small

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 3>d democracy right. Fourteen million people went through the process

0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:49.160
<v Speaker 3>and chose this nominee, Joe Biden. Now a handful of

0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:51.560
<v Speaker 3>people have gotten together and decided he's no longer suitable.

0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 3>That's not how this system works, or.

0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:57.480
<v Speaker 2>As Johnson confused about how the system works. Joining me

0:01:57.600 --> 0:02:01.720
<v Speaker 2>is elections law expert Richard Brefalt, professor at Columbia Law School.

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:07.200
<v Speaker 2>So she has more than enough pledged delegates to clinch

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:11.359
<v Speaker 2>the Democratic presidential nomination. So does that rule out any

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 2>kind of an open convention or problems at the convention?

0:02:15.760 --> 0:02:17.600
<v Speaker 4>I think it will turn on the rules. I mean,

0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:21.120
<v Speaker 4>I don't think it precludes an open convention. Nobody seems

0:02:21.160 --> 0:02:24.119
<v Speaker 4>to be running against her. I mean, the way delegates

0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:27.080
<v Speaker 4>work in the Democratic Party, even if Biden were running,

0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:29.480
<v Speaker 4>the nature of the pledge is it's like an honor

0:02:29.520 --> 0:02:32.120
<v Speaker 4>pledge or a good faith pledge, so even the pledge

0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:35.120
<v Speaker 4>delegates actually could have voted for someone else. So the

0:02:35.160 --> 0:02:37.600
<v Speaker 4>fact that they've kind of announced a commitment to her,

0:02:38.040 --> 0:02:41.400
<v Speaker 4>they're not legally pledged to her, so people could change

0:02:41.440 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 4>their minds. I mean, I'm not saying that's going to happen,

0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:45.960
<v Speaker 4>but I think the real issue is I think I

0:02:46.000 --> 0:02:49.200
<v Speaker 4>saw Mary Ann Williamson might have declared. I think under

0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:51.880
<v Speaker 4>the rules of the Democratic Party, anyone who wants to

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:54.960
<v Speaker 4>be nominated would need to support a three hundred delegates

0:02:55.040 --> 0:02:57.400
<v Speaker 4>with no more than fifty from one state, And at

0:02:57.400 --> 0:02:59.959
<v Speaker 4>this point it doesn't seem like there'll be any other candidate,

0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 4>so I think in that sense she has it wrapped up.

0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:05.320
<v Speaker 4>None of the other prominent figures in Democratic parties have

0:03:05.400 --> 0:03:07.880
<v Speaker 4>indicated any interest in running. I think at this point

0:03:07.880 --> 0:03:11.079
<v Speaker 4>they've all endorsed her, so in some sense it's technically open.

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:15.079
<v Speaker 4>But she's going to be nominated, presumably, if not by acclamation,

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 4>then by some overwhelming vote.

0:03:18.120 --> 0:03:21.800
<v Speaker 2>One of the first questions is whether she can access

0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:24.000
<v Speaker 2>Biden's campaign funds.

0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:26.799
<v Speaker 4>Right, so the money is sort of in three parts,

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.480
<v Speaker 4>and the only real issue is the money technically that

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.600
<v Speaker 4>went to the Biden Harris campaign. So the money that

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 4>goes to the Democratic Party, of course she can use.

0:03:35.040 --> 0:03:37.640
<v Speaker 4>And I think they also had a pack going, a

0:03:37.680 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 4>superpack going, and of that of course they can use.

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 4>The issue was the money that they went to Biden

0:03:42.720 --> 0:03:46.280
<v Speaker 4>Harris specifically, and there I think it's a smaller amount,

0:03:46.400 --> 0:03:48.520
<v Speaker 4>maybe like ninety million, but I'm not sure about that.

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:51.440
<v Speaker 4>The assumption of all the campaigns and nance people I've

0:03:51.480 --> 0:03:54.720
<v Speaker 4>spoken to is yet, as long as Harris continues to

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.440
<v Speaker 4>be on the ticket, it's money that she can use.

0:03:57.480 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 4>The issue would have been more if the Democrats and

0:03:59.880 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 4>not made someone else, then I think the Biden Harris

0:04:03.400 --> 0:04:05.800
<v Speaker 4>committee would have had to transfer the money to the

0:04:05.840 --> 0:04:09.160
<v Speaker 4>Democratic Party and the Democratic Party would have the money.

0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:11.720
<v Speaker 4>But as long as she's the nominee, she is part

0:04:11.720 --> 0:04:14.040
<v Speaker 4>of Biden Harris, which I think now has already been

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:17.320
<v Speaker 4>renamed Harris. So the assumption of just about every campaign

0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:20.480
<v Speaker 4>finance lawyer I know is that yes, she can use it.

0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:23.640
<v Speaker 4>I think that some Republicans have made some noises about

0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:26.920
<v Speaker 4>challenging that, but I think that the overwhelming assumption has

0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:29.720
<v Speaker 4>been the money went to her also it was going

0:04:29.760 --> 0:04:33.160
<v Speaker 4>to Biden and Harris. Harris is still running. So I

0:04:33.200 --> 0:04:36.600
<v Speaker 4>think that the vast majority of campaing San's lawyers and

0:04:36.640 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 4>scholars believe that it's money she can use.

0:04:39.279 --> 0:04:43.240
<v Speaker 5>And I understand that even if it's challenged that the

0:04:43.279 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 5>Federal Election Commission takes so long to move that it

0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:49.839
<v Speaker 5>would just be a question of paying fines later.

0:04:50.279 --> 0:04:52.480
<v Speaker 4>Not only it takes so long to move but you

0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:54.920
<v Speaker 4>would need to get four votes, and there are three

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:58.000
<v Speaker 4>Democrats who sit on the commission. There's a sixth member commission,

0:04:58.440 --> 0:05:02.679
<v Speaker 4>three Democrats and three Republicans, and on most major things

0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:05.200
<v Speaker 4>they tend to vote on party mind, So it just

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:07.599
<v Speaker 4>seems right there's both the time that would take and

0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:10.760
<v Speaker 4>likely vote, and I think given the rules of the

0:05:10.800 --> 0:05:13.160
<v Speaker 4>federal election law, I think it will be very hard

0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:16.359
<v Speaker 4>for Republicans to sidestep the Commission and go directly to court.

0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:19.840
<v Speaker 4>Now somebody might try that, but I do think it's

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 4>kind of a lost cause given the court system today.

0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:24.880
<v Speaker 4>You never know one hundred percent. But I think, as

0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:27.120
<v Speaker 4>I said, the overwhelming belief is that the money she

0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:30.080
<v Speaker 4>could use and would be very unlikely the Federal Election

0:05:30.080 --> 0:05:33.240
<v Speaker 4>Commission would certainly during the course of the campaign, but

0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 4>at any time come and say it was an improper use.

0:05:36.520 --> 0:05:40.599
<v Speaker 2>Speaker Mike Johnson says he expects they'll be litigation, saying

0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 2>there are fifty different systems and that in some states

0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:47.799
<v Speaker 2>there are impediments to swapping candidates. Could there be losses

0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:49.080
<v Speaker 2>on the basis of the switch.

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:52.599
<v Speaker 4>It seems like a totally ridiculous argument. The party doesn't

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:55.039
<v Speaker 4>have a candidate. The party doesn't have a candidate until

0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:58.720
<v Speaker 4>they make a nomination. Biden was never nominated. Democratic convention

0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:01.760
<v Speaker 4>has not met. The so called virtual role call we're

0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:05.360
<v Speaker 4>talking about hasn't happened. The Democratic Party gets to decide

0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:08.960
<v Speaker 4>who the Democratic Party's nominee is, and they haven't made

0:06:09.000 --> 0:06:11.279
<v Speaker 4>a choice yet. I don't think there'd be an issue

0:06:11.320 --> 0:06:14.159
<v Speaker 4>even if it was answered the nomination, because they still

0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:16.240
<v Speaker 4>get to write their own rules. Just they make it

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:21.160
<v Speaker 4>clear Biden was never the nominee. He was the presumptive nominee,

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:24.600
<v Speaker 4>that he was never the nominee, and so there's no

0:06:24.760 --> 0:06:29.000
<v Speaker 4>challenge to make. There's no substitution, no ballots had been printed,

0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:32.719
<v Speaker 4>and so it's it's totally blowing smoke.

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 2>So then what about the June twenty first memo from

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 2>the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, where it says

0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 2>it views swing states Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin as likely

0:06:44.440 --> 0:06:49.040
<v Speaker 2>arenas for pre election legal challenges because they have specific

0:06:49.120 --> 0:06:52.760
<v Speaker 2>procedures for withdrawal of a presidential nominee.

0:06:52.960 --> 0:06:54.880
<v Speaker 4>The only way there would be anything is that Biden

0:06:54.880 --> 0:06:58.520
<v Speaker 4>had actually been nominated, but Biden wasn't nominated. It doesn't

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:01.880
<v Speaker 4>matter that Biden won primary there because many times a

0:07:01.960 --> 0:07:05.560
<v Speaker 4>candidate who's won primary and there's upstates, whose is the nomination.

0:07:05.839 --> 0:07:08.240
<v Speaker 4>So the fact that Harris didn't win the primary any

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:11.040
<v Speaker 4>of the states is irrelevant. Many candidate who are then

0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:14.600
<v Speaker 4>ultimate nominees lost some primaries, they still got to be

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:17.000
<v Speaker 4>on the ballots of the states where they lost the primary.

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:19.880
<v Speaker 4>So I think they might have some argument that he'd

0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:22.360
<v Speaker 4>actually been nominated and she was being put in to

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 4>replace him, but he was never nominated.

0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 2>Which do you see any other legal complications of her candidacy.

0:07:30.160 --> 0:07:33.120
<v Speaker 4>No, I don't, I don't. I mean, I think again,

0:07:33.200 --> 0:07:36.520
<v Speaker 4>there's a potential potential challenge on the money when it

0:07:36.520 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 4>goes from Biden Harris to Harris somebody else. But I

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:43.200
<v Speaker 4>do think there it's still Harris. I think that challenge

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:47.240
<v Speaker 4>is pretty weak. There's absolutely no challenge on her being

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.320
<v Speaker 4>on the ballot because you say, one more time, Biden

0:07:50.480 --> 0:07:54.400
<v Speaker 4>was never the nominee, so there's no issue about changing nominees.

0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:58.720
<v Speaker 4>He hadn't been nominated yet, and you know it was

0:07:58.920 --> 0:08:01.160
<v Speaker 4>not likely that he would have defeves of the convention.

0:08:01.280 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 4>But there have been contested conventions. I mean, maybe the

0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:07.960
<v Speaker 4>least truly contested one was in nineteen seventy six when

0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 4>Ronald Reagan was trying to unseae Gerald Ford. He came close,

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:15.000
<v Speaker 4>and if he had done that, he would have been

0:08:15.040 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 4>the nominee. And the fact that had Ford with the

0:08:17.240 --> 0:08:19.160
<v Speaker 4>incumbent president and had won a bunch of states and

0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:20.960
<v Speaker 4>primaries would have been irrelevant.

0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:23.360
<v Speaker 2>So do you have any idea what Mike Johnson is

0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:24.000
<v Speaker 2>talking about?

0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:26.440
<v Speaker 4>Then I have no idea what he's talking about. I mean,

0:08:26.480 --> 0:08:28.040
<v Speaker 4>I mean, some of the noise he's making is that

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 4>it's undemocratic, small d democratic. But the parties get to

0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:35.040
<v Speaker 4>write their own rules about who the nominees are. Supreme

0:08:35.040 --> 0:08:37.800
<v Speaker 4>Court has said that, going back to contested conventions in

0:08:37.800 --> 0:08:41.599
<v Speaker 4>the nineteen seventies, this is the parties are private organizations.

0:08:41.800 --> 0:08:43.720
<v Speaker 4>They get to write their own rules and to choose

0:08:43.760 --> 0:08:46.160
<v Speaker 4>their own nominees. And it looks like they're going to

0:08:46.240 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 4>choose to nominate Harris. If they do nominate Harris, she's

0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:52.280
<v Speaker 4>the nominee. She's the one who gets on the ballot.

0:08:52.760 --> 0:08:55.200
<v Speaker 4>And if for some reason they choose to nominate somebody

0:08:55.280 --> 0:08:58.120
<v Speaker 4>else because something else happened in the next three weeks,

0:08:58.280 --> 0:08:59.800
<v Speaker 4>that person would be the nominee.

0:09:00.040 --> 0:09:02.080
<v Speaker 2>And what do you think about Johnson's argument that this

0:09:02.200 --> 0:09:06.800
<v Speaker 2>violates democratic principles, that voters chose Biden in the primaries

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:08.359
<v Speaker 2>and now they're getting Harris.

0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:11.440
<v Speaker 3>There's a reason it's unprecedented. You don't just, you know,

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:14.640
<v Speaker 3>steamroll the rules in the process because you decide that

0:09:14.679 --> 0:09:16.280
<v Speaker 3>your candidate is no longer suitable.

0:09:16.480 --> 0:09:18.920
<v Speaker 4>I mean, I think, for one thing, Biden was always

0:09:19.000 --> 0:09:22.480
<v Speaker 4>running with Harris as as his teammate. So to some extent,

0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:25.080
<v Speaker 4>they're still getting one of their choices. But I think

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:27.679
<v Speaker 4>in the end, remember, the winner of the primary in

0:09:27.720 --> 0:09:30.720
<v Speaker 4>any one state is not guaranteed or in many states.

0:09:30.760 --> 0:09:33.840
<v Speaker 4>I mean, going back to nineteen sixty eight, Hubert Humphrey

0:09:33.880 --> 0:09:36.800
<v Speaker 4>didn't run any primaries and he was the nominee. Eugene

0:09:36.840 --> 0:09:40.480
<v Speaker 4>McCarthy won more primaries than Hubert Humphrey, but Hubert Humphrey

0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:41.200
<v Speaker 4>was the nominee.

0:09:41.559 --> 0:09:45.599
<v Speaker 2>Everyone agrees on one thing. This is unprecedented, But is

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:49.559
<v Speaker 2>there anything in presidential history that would be analogous.

0:09:49.800 --> 0:09:51.760
<v Speaker 4>It's hard to make an analogy where there was somebody

0:09:51.800 --> 0:09:57.040
<v Speaker 4>who was so clearly the presumptive nominee and then who

0:09:57.120 --> 0:09:59.400
<v Speaker 4>pulls out at the last minute. There have been a

0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:02.640
<v Speaker 4>couple of a life where a candidate dies but that

0:10:02.679 --> 0:10:05.160
<v Speaker 4>person's already been nominated, and then there's a scrambled to

0:10:05.360 --> 0:10:08.280
<v Speaker 4>place the candidate that has happened, But I can't recall

0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:12.360
<v Speaker 4>anything like this where there was somebody who had won

0:10:12.400 --> 0:10:15.320
<v Speaker 4>all the primaries, was the presumptive nominee and then decides no,

0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:19.640
<v Speaker 4>I'm not going to run, and the party quickly rallies

0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:22.760
<v Speaker 4>around another person. But again, this is the person who

0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 4>was his number two. It's not a challenger who is

0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:30.959
<v Speaker 4>going to be chosen. So it is unprecedented, but it's utterly,

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:34.360
<v Speaker 4>entirely consistent with the rules. Maybe just leave it at that.

0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:37.400
<v Speaker 4>Is that again, just to make it clear, he was

0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:40.600
<v Speaker 4>never the nominee, so they're not replacing a nominee. They're

0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 4>just picking a nominee. And when people were donating money,

0:10:44.000 --> 0:10:47.160
<v Speaker 4>they were donating money to Biden Harris. It looks like

0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:49.360
<v Speaker 4>they're still going to get Harris.

0:10:49.840 --> 0:10:52.679
<v Speaker 2>Thanks Rich for helping us clear up the confusion with

0:10:53.200 --> 0:10:57.200
<v Speaker 2>facts and legal analysis. That's Professor Richard Ruflt. Of Columbia

0:10:57.280 --> 0:11:00.560
<v Speaker 2>Law School coming up next on the Bloomberg Lall Show.

0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:03.800
<v Speaker 2>Remember back in late May, when the Justice Department in

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.440
<v Speaker 2>more than two dozen states filed a major anti trust

0:11:07.520 --> 0:11:12.400
<v Speaker 2>lawsuit seeking to break up Ticketmaster's owner Live Nation. Well,

0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:15.679
<v Speaker 2>Live Nation has filed its first answer to that suit,

0:11:16.080 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 2>and we'll tell you about it. I'm June Grosso and

0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:19.199
<v Speaker 2>this is Bloomberg.

0:11:22.200 --> 0:11:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Ticketmaster can impose a seemingly endless list of fees on fans.

0:11:28.559 --> 0:11:34.960
<v Speaker 1>Those include ticketing fees, service fees, convenience fees, platinum fees,

0:11:35.400 --> 0:11:40.760
<v Speaker 1>price master fees, per order fees, handling fees, and payment

0:11:40.880 --> 0:11:43.200
<v Speaker 1>processing fees, among others.

0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:47.959
<v Speaker 2>Anyone who's bought concert tickets from Ticketmaster can probably relate

0:11:48.000 --> 0:11:52.320
<v Speaker 2>to Attorney General Merrick Garland's description of the seemingly endless

0:11:52.360 --> 0:11:56.120
<v Speaker 2>fees to purchase tickets. Garland said it was time for

0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:59.280
<v Speaker 2>fans and artists to stop paying the price for Live

0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:02.640
<v Speaker 2>Nations when monopoly. When the Justice Department in more than

0:12:02.679 --> 0:12:06.440
<v Speaker 2>two dozen states filed a major anti trust lawsuit in

0:12:06.559 --> 0:12:11.760
<v Speaker 2>late May, seeking the breakup of Ticketmaster's owner, Live Nation Entertainment.

0:12:12.400 --> 0:12:16.599
<v Speaker 1>Live Nation suffocates its competition using a variety of tactics,

0:12:17.040 --> 0:12:22.200
<v Speaker 1>from acquisitions of smaller regional promoters and venues to threats

0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:27.240
<v Speaker 1>and retaliation to agreements with rivals designed to neutralize them.

0:12:27.880 --> 0:12:32.959
<v Speaker 1>This has included acquiring or co opting key independent promoters.

0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:38.120
<v Speaker 2>Live Nation has denied its monopoly, blaming rising ticket prices

0:12:38.160 --> 0:12:43.120
<v Speaker 2>on things like increasing production costs, artists popularity, and twenty

0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:46.880
<v Speaker 2>four to seven online ticket scalping. But now Live Nation

0:12:47.040 --> 0:12:50.520
<v Speaker 2>has offered its first official response to the anti trust

0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:54.319
<v Speaker 2>claims in a letter to the federal judge overseeing the litigation,

0:12:54.880 --> 0:12:57.600
<v Speaker 2>joining me to discuss the strength of the case. And

0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:01.680
<v Speaker 2>that response is antitrust ECXI, spurred Harry First, a professor

0:13:01.720 --> 0:13:05.559
<v Speaker 2>at NYU Law School. Harry start by telling us about

0:13:05.640 --> 0:13:08.520
<v Speaker 2>the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Live Nation.

0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:12.800
<v Speaker 6>Okay, so this is in some ways basically a suit

0:13:12.880 --> 0:13:16.320
<v Speaker 6>to correct a bad mistake the Justice Department made in

0:13:16.400 --> 0:13:20.199
<v Speaker 6>twenty ten. So it's taken them a while, but eventually

0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:23.240
<v Speaker 6>anti trust enforcers are trying to get it right. So

0:13:23.360 --> 0:13:27.520
<v Speaker 6>what happened was in two thousand and nine, Ticketmaster and

0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:32.200
<v Speaker 6>Live Nation decided to merge, and the Justice Department looked

0:13:32.200 --> 0:13:37.280
<v Speaker 6>at it. Ticketmaster, of course, sells ticketing services to major

0:13:37.360 --> 0:13:41.360
<v Speaker 6>venues around the country what's now called primary ticketing services.

0:13:41.440 --> 0:13:44.520
<v Speaker 6>You know, the secondary markets weren't so developed then, I

0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:47.559
<v Speaker 6>don't think, you know, reselling, and Live Nation was the

0:13:47.600 --> 0:13:51.520
<v Speaker 6>biggest promoter at the time and was about to sort

0:13:51.520 --> 0:13:55.440
<v Speaker 6>of entered the ticketing market. But basically this was what's

0:13:55.480 --> 0:13:58.959
<v Speaker 6>referred to as a vertical merger, not really competitors or

0:13:59.080 --> 0:14:03.720
<v Speaker 6>not much competitor yet, but at the time, the Justice

0:14:03.760 --> 0:14:08.240
<v Speaker 6>Department understood what was going on. So Live Nation, which

0:14:08.480 --> 0:14:14.000
<v Speaker 6>was a big promoter and booker of venues, wanted to

0:14:14.000 --> 0:14:19.520
<v Speaker 6>put its shows into venues that would use Ticketmaster ticketing.

0:14:20.360 --> 0:14:23.880
<v Speaker 6>So the venues knew that if they wanted to get

0:14:24.000 --> 0:14:27.000
<v Speaker 6>you know, a really good show, the best way to

0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:31.760
<v Speaker 6>do it was to use Ticketmaster because they really needed

0:14:31.880 --> 0:14:36.680
<v Speaker 6>Live Nations talent. So Live Nation, as a promoter of

0:14:36.880 --> 0:14:41.360
<v Speaker 6>you know, major tours, thought that this tie up would

0:14:41.760 --> 0:14:45.360
<v Speaker 6>sort of help both businesses, as did Ticketmaster. It would

0:14:45.680 --> 0:14:49.400
<v Speaker 6>give Ticketmaster and edge you know, over competitors in the

0:14:49.440 --> 0:14:53.920
<v Speaker 6>ticketing business, and it would increase Live Nations revenues because

0:14:53.960 --> 0:14:58.400
<v Speaker 6>now they owned a ticketing company. So control the talent,

0:14:58.920 --> 0:15:03.560
<v Speaker 6>control entry or choice of the venues, and you control ticketing.

0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:07.640
<v Speaker 6>So at the time, the Justice Department knew this, there

0:15:07.760 --> 0:15:12.840
<v Speaker 6>was testimony about this, and also Ticketmaster had, you know,

0:15:12.880 --> 0:15:16.480
<v Speaker 6>in major venues, a major share of the market, maybe

0:15:16.520 --> 0:15:20.000
<v Speaker 6>seventy or so percent. You can argue over what exactly

0:15:20.040 --> 0:15:23.400
<v Speaker 6>it was. So they had a dominant or monopoly position

0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:28.280
<v Speaker 6>at the time. But instead of saying you can't merge,

0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:32.360
<v Speaker 6>they said, hey, go ahead and merge. Okay, we've got

0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:35.640
<v Speaker 6>some conditions for you. First, help a company is trying

0:15:35.640 --> 0:15:38.200
<v Speaker 6>to get into the ticketing business, get into it through

0:15:38.240 --> 0:15:40.880
<v Speaker 6>some software. Okay, that was one idea. The second thing

0:15:41.040 --> 0:15:46.080
<v Speaker 6>is we'll tell Live Nations that they can't condition their talents,

0:15:46.280 --> 0:15:50.240
<v Speaker 6>you know, with venues on using Ticketmaster, they can't make

0:15:50.280 --> 0:15:53.800
<v Speaker 6>that a condition, and they can't retaliate against the venue

0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:57.720
<v Speaker 6>if that venue subsequently decides to use a ticketing company.

0:15:58.000 --> 0:16:02.760
<v Speaker 6>So no conditioning, no retaliation. Fine. We think this is wonderful.

0:16:02.960 --> 0:16:06.560
<v Speaker 6>Parties merge. The new entrant turns out never does well

0:16:07.080 --> 0:16:10.840
<v Speaker 6>and almost from the beginning they violate the decree, and

0:16:11.200 --> 0:16:14.400
<v Speaker 6>in fact, they don't have to actually violate it because

0:16:14.440 --> 0:16:19.720
<v Speaker 6>every promoter, every venue owner knows what the deal is.

0:16:20.480 --> 0:16:24.320
<v Speaker 6>You know, give Live Nation the ticketing revenue, you're more

0:16:24.480 --> 0:16:27.760
<v Speaker 6>likely you're going to get the good tours into your venue.

0:16:27.760 --> 0:16:31.240
<v Speaker 6>And there's a lot of competition for that. So this

0:16:31.400 --> 0:16:35.800
<v Speaker 6>decree never worked. It didn't work because the parties violated.

0:16:35.880 --> 0:16:38.920
<v Speaker 6>There were later proceedings because it looked like they were

0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:41.760
<v Speaker 6>violating it, and then kame Taylor Swift.

0:16:42.360 --> 0:16:46.480
<v Speaker 2>Referring of course to the website crashing, et cetera, et cetera,

0:16:46.480 --> 0:16:46.960
<v Speaker 2>et cetera.

0:16:47.400 --> 0:16:51.040
<v Speaker 6>Oh, that was the push and hearings in the Senate,

0:16:51.080 --> 0:16:54.480
<v Speaker 6>Amy Klobashar and so forth. That was the push that

0:16:54.720 --> 0:16:57.840
<v Speaker 6>finally pushed the Justice Department. And this has been a

0:16:57.840 --> 0:17:02.520
<v Speaker 6>pretty aggressive Justice Department on any trust to say, you know,

0:17:03.160 --> 0:17:08.120
<v Speaker 6>just really, almost fifteen years, it just didn't work and

0:17:08.440 --> 0:17:11.440
<v Speaker 6>it's time to do something about it. So the lawsuit

0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:15.399
<v Speaker 6>we see now is the Justice Department saying, you know,

0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:21.240
<v Speaker 6>Ticketmaster has a monopoly position in primary ticketing services, and

0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:25.600
<v Speaker 6>it's solidified by this, you know, being owned by Live Nation.

0:17:26.119 --> 0:17:30.200
<v Speaker 6>We've got to stop it, declare them monopoly, and.

0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:33.560
<v Speaker 2>Then break them up is tying an anti trust term?

0:17:33.840 --> 0:17:36.440
<v Speaker 2>Will you explain what it means? In this context?

0:17:37.080 --> 0:17:39.920
<v Speaker 6>Tying is an anti trust term. And so there is

0:17:40.080 --> 0:17:43.200
<v Speaker 6>in the Justice Department's complaint, which is joined by a

0:17:43.240 --> 0:17:46.080
<v Speaker 6>lot of states. By the way, there is in this

0:17:46.160 --> 0:17:50.080
<v Speaker 6>complaint not just a complaint about the monopolization of the

0:17:50.080 --> 0:17:53.919
<v Speaker 6>ticketing markets and large venues. There's a complaint about a

0:17:54.040 --> 0:17:59.439
<v Speaker 6>tying arrangement in here that involves the talent itself. So

0:17:59.480 --> 0:18:03.040
<v Speaker 6>a tying arrangement is basically, you have two products. A

0:18:03.160 --> 0:18:06.520
<v Speaker 6>seller says, if you want my A product, guess what

0:18:06.640 --> 0:18:09.439
<v Speaker 6>you've got to take B So you know, I don't know.

0:18:09.480 --> 0:18:11.520
<v Speaker 6>If you want my car, you got to take my tires.

0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:14.199
<v Speaker 6>There's always a question of what two products are. But

0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:17.640
<v Speaker 6>that's the basic of a tying arrangement, and the Justice

0:18:17.680 --> 0:18:22.920
<v Speaker 6>Department alleges that talent knows. There's this talent promoting services

0:18:22.960 --> 0:18:27.120
<v Speaker 6>market that Live Nation also is involved in. So if

0:18:27.119 --> 0:18:30.200
<v Speaker 6>you want those promotion services, you've got to be sure

0:18:30.240 --> 0:18:33.520
<v Speaker 6>to be booked into the proper venues that, of course

0:18:33.520 --> 0:18:38.000
<v Speaker 6>are using Ticketmaster. This is part of the complaint, and

0:18:38.040 --> 0:18:41.280
<v Speaker 6>it's a part that the defendant Ticketmaster a lot of

0:18:41.400 --> 0:18:46.119
<v Speaker 6>nation says it might move to dismiss, but frankly, it

0:18:46.200 --> 0:18:49.480
<v Speaker 6>seems like a rather minor part of the complaint. The

0:18:49.560 --> 0:18:53.600
<v Speaker 6>big part is their monopolization claim, and the big relief

0:18:54.040 --> 0:18:57.639
<v Speaker 6>is to break up the company. So tying can be

0:18:57.720 --> 0:19:02.000
<v Speaker 6>a problem, and it's historically a problem, but it's not

0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:05.760
<v Speaker 6>the central problem of this piece of litigation.

0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:09.240
<v Speaker 2>And what you're referring to there is that they're at

0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:13.160
<v Speaker 2>the motion to dismiss stage, and the judge asked Live

0:19:13.320 --> 0:19:18.200
<v Speaker 2>Nation to identify issues that it might contemplate a motion

0:19:18.359 --> 0:19:24.199
<v Speaker 2>to dismiss on. Live Nation's letter in response was pretty narrow.

0:19:24.680 --> 0:19:26.560
<v Speaker 2>What did you think of the response?

0:19:29.640 --> 0:19:36.320
<v Speaker 6>Not much? I mean, okay, it involves a little more

0:19:36.400 --> 0:19:41.159
<v Speaker 6>factual analysis of who's force to do. Was basically a

0:19:41.240 --> 0:19:45.120
<v Speaker 6>compelled arrangement, and in fact, it came out of cases

0:19:45.160 --> 0:19:50.960
<v Speaker 6>where a company had a machine that deposited salt tablets

0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:54.680
<v Speaker 6>into canned products, and they said, well, if you want

0:19:54.680 --> 0:19:57.600
<v Speaker 6>this machine, we have a patent on so you've got

0:19:57.600 --> 0:19:59.920
<v Speaker 6>to have a machine. You've got to buy salt from.

0:20:00.440 --> 0:20:05.480
<v Speaker 6>Salt was the tied product, and the machine, which they

0:20:05.520 --> 0:20:09.040
<v Speaker 6>had some monopoly power over, was the tieing product, and

0:20:09.040 --> 0:20:12.159
<v Speaker 6>that's where the idea came that this was anti competitive

0:20:12.200 --> 0:20:16.760
<v Speaker 6>because it's stopped competition in the B market, the tide

0:20:17.160 --> 0:20:21.280
<v Speaker 6>product market salt. So, you know, is this a problem here?

0:20:21.320 --> 0:20:23.439
<v Speaker 6>Maybe this is going to depend on the facts, but

0:20:23.600 --> 0:20:26.959
<v Speaker 6>not the critical problem. So I was a little They

0:20:27.000 --> 0:20:29.480
<v Speaker 6>haven't made their motion yet and it's a little I

0:20:29.480 --> 0:20:32.800
<v Speaker 6>don't know what they're doing with this particular part. They

0:20:32.800 --> 0:20:35.800
<v Speaker 6>are trying to move the case to a different court,

0:20:35.960 --> 0:20:39.520
<v Speaker 6>so maybe they don't want to, you know, reveal their

0:20:39.680 --> 0:20:42.439
<v Speaker 6>entire legal strategy at the moment. I really don't know,

0:20:42.720 --> 0:20:45.880
<v Speaker 6>but they're trying to change where the case is going

0:20:45.920 --> 0:20:48.160
<v Speaker 6>to be tried from New York to DC.

0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:50.639
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, why do they want to change? I mean, do

0:20:50.720 --> 0:20:53.199
<v Speaker 2>they think they'll have more luck in DC than in

0:20:53.240 --> 0:20:53.720
<v Speaker 2>New York?

0:20:54.800 --> 0:20:58.400
<v Speaker 6>I knew you were going to ask me that. And

0:20:58.480 --> 0:21:01.240
<v Speaker 6>I'm not really sure why they want to change. It's

0:21:01.240 --> 0:21:03.640
<v Speaker 6>going to change the venue, as you know, I'm not

0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:07.160
<v Speaker 6>really sure why they want to do that flow things down.

0:21:07.600 --> 0:21:11.120
<v Speaker 6>Maybe they're dissatisfied with this particular judge. They know who

0:21:11.119 --> 0:21:15.040
<v Speaker 6>they've got here. Maybe the docket is slower in DC.

0:21:15.400 --> 0:21:18.000
<v Speaker 6>They've got a lot of cases there. Part of it

0:21:18.040 --> 0:21:22.520
<v Speaker 6>may be related to their effort to dismiss the state claims.

0:21:23.040 --> 0:21:27.520
<v Speaker 6>So the states are asking for damages, not clear which states,

0:21:27.520 --> 0:21:31.480
<v Speaker 6>but under their state law. And there's now precedent in

0:21:31.560 --> 0:21:35.359
<v Speaker 6>the DC Circuit which takes a somewhat dim view of

0:21:35.800 --> 0:21:40.560
<v Speaker 6>these kinds of state claims in any trust cases case

0:21:40.600 --> 0:21:44.760
<v Speaker 6>that involves the Facebook litigation in the District of Columbia,

0:21:45.320 --> 0:21:48.600
<v Speaker 6>So maybe they feel they have a better chance of

0:21:48.640 --> 0:21:52.560
<v Speaker 6>getting those state claims dismissed there. And the state claims

0:21:52.960 --> 0:21:56.719
<v Speaker 6>also come with a request for a jury trial. So

0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:01.640
<v Speaker 6>hard for me to know exactly, you know, what all

0:22:01.760 --> 0:22:04.840
<v Speaker 6>is going on. And I mean, obviously people don't ask

0:22:04.880 --> 0:22:07.480
<v Speaker 6>for change of venue unless they think they'll be better

0:22:07.520 --> 0:22:10.600
<v Speaker 6>off someplace else. But I'm not quite sure why they

0:22:10.680 --> 0:22:11.120
<v Speaker 6>think that.

0:22:11.480 --> 0:22:15.520
<v Speaker 2>And so in this letter to the judge they try

0:22:15.560 --> 0:22:19.440
<v Speaker 2>to knock out the state claims in different ways. Are

0:22:19.480 --> 0:22:22.760
<v Speaker 2>they trying to avoid a jury trial in a case

0:22:22.920 --> 0:22:27.120
<v Speaker 2>like this where I mean, who hasn't been aggrieved by

0:22:28.119 --> 0:22:28.879
<v Speaker 2>ticket Master?

0:22:29.160 --> 0:22:31.600
<v Speaker 6>You mean you think the jury might not be too sympathetic,

0:22:31.800 --> 0:22:33.960
<v Speaker 6>That's what I'm thinking. But that's what I'm thinking.

0:22:35.640 --> 0:22:39.000
<v Speaker 2>Whether you're a fan of Taylor Swift, Bruce Bringsteen all.

0:22:38.880 --> 0:22:42.320
<v Speaker 6>The way back, right, Yeah, that's a good instinct. I

0:22:42.359 --> 0:22:44.960
<v Speaker 6>think on this they really would not want to have

0:22:45.040 --> 0:22:47.800
<v Speaker 6>to present this case to a jury. And the claim

0:22:47.840 --> 0:22:52.080
<v Speaker 6>for damages seems it's a little vague, which the defendant

0:22:52.520 --> 0:22:55.199
<v Speaker 6>does say, and I think correctly, you know, not that

0:22:55.240 --> 0:22:58.280
<v Speaker 6>they can't be made less vague. But if there's not

0:22:58.359 --> 0:23:02.040
<v Speaker 6>a claim for damages, then the case gets tried before

0:23:02.080 --> 0:23:05.280
<v Speaker 6>a judge, and you just hope, I guess that the

0:23:05.359 --> 0:23:10.720
<v Speaker 6>judges never bought a ticket that's a stress to an event,

0:23:11.320 --> 0:23:13.359
<v Speaker 6>So you know that's part of it. Now. If it

0:23:13.400 --> 0:23:16.000
<v Speaker 6>doesn't get moved them, they're gonna make the same claims

0:23:16.040 --> 0:23:19.280
<v Speaker 6>in New York. And you know they've already cited the

0:23:19.400 --> 0:23:23.360
<v Speaker 6>DC circuit case. But you know it's stronger if it's

0:23:23.359 --> 0:23:25.679
<v Speaker 6>in a circuit in which you're litigating, not in a

0:23:25.960 --> 0:23:26.760
<v Speaker 6>sister circuit.

0:23:27.680 --> 0:23:30.200
<v Speaker 2>Stay with me. Harry, coming up next on the Bloomberg

0:23:30.280 --> 0:23:34.040
<v Speaker 2>Law Show, Live Nation says the lawsuit won't solve the

0:23:34.080 --> 0:23:38.840
<v Speaker 2>issues fans care about and how antitrust enforcement will change

0:23:39.160 --> 0:23:45.200
<v Speaker 2>with a different administration. In January, we're discussing the Justice

0:23:45.240 --> 0:23:48.880
<v Speaker 2>Department's anti trust suit against ticket Master and its parent company,

0:23:48.960 --> 0:23:52.760
<v Speaker 2>Live Nation, accusing them of running an illegal monopoly over

0:23:52.920 --> 0:23:57.119
<v Speaker 2>Live concerts. I've been talking to anti trust expert Harry First,

0:23:57.160 --> 0:24:01.080
<v Speaker 2>a professor at n YU Law School. The Nation's legal

0:24:01.119 --> 0:24:03.879
<v Speaker 2>team was saying that the government has no right to

0:24:03.960 --> 0:24:07.960
<v Speaker 2>force it to do business with competing promoters in buildings

0:24:08.040 --> 0:24:08.720
<v Speaker 2>that it owns.

0:24:09.560 --> 0:24:12.520
<v Speaker 6>I guess, you know, you can say it. They can't

0:24:12.560 --> 0:24:16.600
<v Speaker 6>force them to do business, but they're forcing others to

0:24:16.680 --> 0:24:21.280
<v Speaker 6>do business. They're forcing their customers, they're forcing the artists

0:24:21.320 --> 0:24:24.120
<v Speaker 6>to do business. Now they claim that the artists don't

0:24:24.119 --> 0:24:26.560
<v Speaker 6>have a say on which venue is used. I don't

0:24:26.600 --> 0:24:29.960
<v Speaker 6>know enough of the facts on that particular wrinkle of

0:24:30.000 --> 0:24:33.080
<v Speaker 6>the case. My guess is that in practice it's a

0:24:33.080 --> 0:24:37.399
<v Speaker 6>lot more complicated. But I think the tying part is

0:24:37.640 --> 0:24:42.000
<v Speaker 6>whatever the merits of their claim, which is overdrawn as

0:24:42.040 --> 0:24:44.960
<v Speaker 6>a bit, But whatever those merits, it doesn't really go

0:24:45.040 --> 0:24:49.280
<v Speaker 6>to the heart of what the competition problem is here

0:24:49.760 --> 0:24:52.800
<v Speaker 6>and what the government is asking for, which does go to,

0:24:53.119 --> 0:24:57.040
<v Speaker 6>you know, to what for them a very successful business model,

0:24:57.480 --> 0:25:00.639
<v Speaker 6>even if it's not a great business model from the

0:25:00.680 --> 0:25:03.639
<v Speaker 6>point of view of consumers or venues which you know,

0:25:03.840 --> 0:25:08.840
<v Speaker 6>are forced to use ticket masters not so great ticketing services.

0:25:09.359 --> 0:25:14.959
<v Speaker 2>Live Nation claims that this lawsuit won't solve what fans

0:25:15.000 --> 0:25:18.439
<v Speaker 2>care about most, relating to ticket prices, service fees, and

0:25:18.520 --> 0:25:22.160
<v Speaker 2>access to in demand shows. They say that factors from

0:25:22.160 --> 0:25:25.840
<v Speaker 2>increasing production costs to artist's popularity to twenty four to

0:25:25.840 --> 0:25:31.360
<v Speaker 2>seven online ticket scalping are responsible for higher ticket prices.

0:25:31.440 --> 0:25:33.720
<v Speaker 6>Well, you know, I mean, it won't cure cancer either,

0:25:34.200 --> 0:25:36.640
<v Speaker 6>but I mean that's sort of in some ways it's

0:25:36.640 --> 0:25:40.160
<v Speaker 6>a ridiculous statement. Of course, it doesn't cure those other things.

0:25:40.520 --> 0:25:44.600
<v Speaker 6>But if a ticketmaster is able to charge monopoly prices

0:25:44.600 --> 0:25:48.240
<v Speaker 6>for ticketing services, they're charging higher prices and this is

0:25:48.240 --> 0:25:52.200
<v Speaker 6>all folded into what consumers pay, so you know, they

0:25:52.200 --> 0:25:55.760
<v Speaker 6>don't charge highers prices. That's the argument for you know,

0:25:56.040 --> 0:26:00.880
<v Speaker 6>what a monopolist does and consumers pay it. So the

0:26:00.920 --> 0:26:05.359
<v Speaker 6>idea that it won't completely solve high prices, of course,

0:26:05.400 --> 0:26:08.560
<v Speaker 6>that's true. There are a lot of other factors that

0:26:08.640 --> 0:26:11.240
<v Speaker 6>go into you know, what it costs you to go

0:26:11.359 --> 0:26:15.320
<v Speaker 6>to one of these events, and you know ticketing is

0:26:15.359 --> 0:26:17.679
<v Speaker 6>one of them, but it is one of them. So

0:26:18.280 --> 0:26:20.879
<v Speaker 6>that seems to me a sort of argument that is

0:26:20.960 --> 0:26:24.480
<v Speaker 6>more made for newspapers than really for a serious legal

0:26:24.600 --> 0:26:25.719
<v Speaker 6>argument court.

0:26:26.040 --> 0:26:29.159
<v Speaker 2>You mentioned DOJ wants a breakup of the company, and

0:26:29.160 --> 0:26:31.720
<v Speaker 2>that's a drastic remedy. But I've heard it said, well,

0:26:31.880 --> 0:26:34.600
<v Speaker 2>it's drastic, but if it works anywhere, it should be here.

0:26:35.160 --> 0:26:37.840
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, I mean, in many ways this is I mean,

0:26:38.080 --> 0:26:40.000
<v Speaker 6>I don't know for sure because they don't know the

0:26:40.040 --> 0:26:43.679
<v Speaker 6>inner workings of how integrated the firms are. But this

0:26:43.720 --> 0:26:48.240
<v Speaker 6>should be a case where it's relatively easy, relatively being

0:26:48.240 --> 0:26:52.640
<v Speaker 6>the keyword to break the company up because they do

0:26:52.720 --> 0:26:56.720
<v Speaker 6>operate as at least public Facing has two separate companies.

0:26:56.760 --> 0:27:00.240
<v Speaker 6>They do two separate things. They're in separate market that

0:27:00.359 --> 0:27:04.639
<v Speaker 6>are linked, but they used to operate separately before and

0:27:04.840 --> 0:27:09.000
<v Speaker 6>presumably could operate separately again. So I think you're right.

0:27:09.400 --> 0:27:11.720
<v Speaker 6>This is a case where, you know, restructuring of the

0:27:11.800 --> 0:27:15.760
<v Speaker 6>company sounds like it is doable. The question is whether

0:27:15.800 --> 0:27:20.600
<v Speaker 6>that's going to change Ticketmaster's monopoly position or not. And

0:27:21.119 --> 0:27:23.240
<v Speaker 6>that's sort of the next step. So you could break

0:27:23.280 --> 0:27:26.280
<v Speaker 6>them up, but you know, how much will that increase

0:27:26.320 --> 0:27:27.760
<v Speaker 6>competition in itself?

0:27:28.800 --> 0:27:32.919
<v Speaker 2>Can live Nation use the fact that the DOJ allowed

0:27:32.920 --> 0:27:35.680
<v Speaker 2>the merger to proceed in the first place, and then

0:27:36.240 --> 0:27:40.560
<v Speaker 2>agreed to extend the initial consent decree as recently as

0:27:40.560 --> 0:27:44.480
<v Speaker 2>twenty nineteen, even after it found that live nation repeatedly

0:27:44.720 --> 0:27:46.880
<v Speaker 2>violated the decree.

0:27:47.720 --> 0:27:50.000
<v Speaker 6>Can they use that as an argument? They are doing that,

0:27:50.080 --> 0:27:52.879
<v Speaker 6>I think, and they will make that argument. Is it

0:27:52.920 --> 0:27:55.600
<v Speaker 6>a good legal argument? I really don't think so. There

0:27:56.359 --> 0:27:59.600
<v Speaker 6>is not what's called in the stoppel against the government.

0:27:59.640 --> 0:28:04.720
<v Speaker 6>The government is able to and free to change its

0:28:04.760 --> 0:28:08.119
<v Speaker 6>policy as it sees how it works. There are older

0:28:08.200 --> 0:28:12.480
<v Speaker 6>cases in which you know, the government accepted this particular remedy,

0:28:12.880 --> 0:28:15.919
<v Speaker 6>the remedy didn't work out. The district court judge in

0:28:15.960 --> 0:28:18.560
<v Speaker 6>fact in that older case said, see, I can't change

0:28:18.560 --> 0:28:22.840
<v Speaker 6>this decree. You entered it, and the Supreme Court said, no,

0:28:23.359 --> 0:28:26.680
<v Speaker 6>you can. It didn't work. Ten years you had a

0:28:26.800 --> 0:28:29.040
<v Speaker 6>chance for this to work and it didn't bring competition.

0:28:29.359 --> 0:28:32.679
<v Speaker 6>Ten years is long enough. So I don't think in

0:28:32.720 --> 0:28:35.800
<v Speaker 6>the end that's really a good argument. And I do

0:28:35.960 --> 0:28:40.120
<v Speaker 6>disagree with the idea that the Justice Department approved the merger.

0:28:40.600 --> 0:28:45.600
<v Speaker 6>Justice Department never approves mergers. It decides what it will

0:28:45.640 --> 0:28:49.280
<v Speaker 6>do in terms of bringing a lawsuit, and it may

0:28:49.320 --> 0:28:52.600
<v Speaker 6>decide not to sue, or it may decide to settle

0:28:52.600 --> 0:28:55.120
<v Speaker 6>a claim in a particular way, but it doesn't approve it.

0:28:55.520 --> 0:29:00.520
<v Speaker 6>Everybody knows it, and you know, things change and don't

0:29:00.520 --> 0:29:04.360
<v Speaker 6>work out, and they don't bind successive governments forever.

0:29:05.080 --> 0:29:08.000
<v Speaker 2>So it sounds like you think that the Justice Department

0:29:08.080 --> 0:29:09.560
<v Speaker 2>has the better case here.

0:29:10.160 --> 0:29:13.680
<v Speaker 6>I do. I do so, of course, as they say,

0:29:14.240 --> 0:29:17.080
<v Speaker 6>we'll see what happens. But you know, you never know

0:29:17.120 --> 0:29:19.160
<v Speaker 6>in litigation. You know, they're still going to have to

0:29:19.240 --> 0:29:24.120
<v Speaker 6>prove exactly what the market is and what Ticketmaster's market

0:29:24.160 --> 0:29:26.880
<v Speaker 6>share is, and you know, they've got to distinguish between

0:29:26.920 --> 0:29:31.080
<v Speaker 6>the primary market and resale market and what Live Nation's

0:29:31.240 --> 0:29:34.760
<v Speaker 6>position is, and you know, whether there's a large arena market.

0:29:34.800 --> 0:29:37.520
<v Speaker 6>There are a lot of technical things that you know,

0:29:37.600 --> 0:29:40.360
<v Speaker 6>still have to be worked out in the context of

0:29:40.400 --> 0:29:44.280
<v Speaker 6>the litigation. But on the surface, at least on of course,

0:29:44.280 --> 0:29:46.720
<v Speaker 6>there's only one side. We have the you know, the

0:29:46.920 --> 0:29:51.320
<v Speaker 6>complaint filed by the Justice Department and a large number

0:29:51.360 --> 0:29:54.680
<v Speaker 6>of states, so we have one view of the allegations.

0:29:54.760 --> 0:30:00.959
<v Speaker 6>But the defendants certainly have defended this position, and you know,

0:30:01.200 --> 0:30:04.160
<v Speaker 6>their position in this industry for a long time. They've

0:30:04.160 --> 0:30:07.200
<v Speaker 6>faced these allegations. So we'll see.

0:30:07.440 --> 0:30:10.680
<v Speaker 2>Do you see a star studded cast at the trial.

0:30:12.320 --> 0:30:14.880
<v Speaker 6>I don't know. It's a great question. I hadn't really

0:30:15.200 --> 0:30:18.680
<v Speaker 6>thought about that. I think even judges can be starstruck

0:30:18.760 --> 0:30:22.200
<v Speaker 6>by Taylor Swift, so I don't know. The Attorney General

0:30:22.240 --> 0:30:23.680
<v Speaker 6>is apparently a big swiftye.

0:30:23.720 --> 0:30:27.360
<v Speaker 2>So really I go more for Springsteen. But still, I mean,

0:30:27.360 --> 0:30:29.120
<v Speaker 2>how long could this take?

0:30:29.440 --> 0:30:29.760
<v Speaker 5>Years?

0:30:30.080 --> 0:30:32.240
<v Speaker 6>So look, looking at it from the defendant's point of view,

0:30:32.280 --> 0:30:35.200
<v Speaker 6>the longer the better. So they're making money off of

0:30:35.240 --> 0:30:38.680
<v Speaker 6>this deal, and you know, if the Justice Department's right,

0:30:39.120 --> 0:30:41.480
<v Speaker 6>they shouldn't be in any hurry to get through it

0:30:41.520 --> 0:30:44.040
<v Speaker 6>because while it's going on, they're still in a great

0:30:44.120 --> 0:30:48.040
<v Speaker 6>market position and still getting those high prices you know,

0:30:48.160 --> 0:30:51.560
<v Speaker 6>in ticketing services. So you know, I don't expect them

0:30:51.560 --> 0:30:55.520
<v Speaker 6>to be asking for quick resolution, and they're not. They're

0:30:55.560 --> 0:30:58.760
<v Speaker 6>trying to move the trial. They're filing letters rather than

0:30:58.840 --> 0:31:01.840
<v Speaker 6>motions to the smith. So it will be a while.

0:31:02.000 --> 0:31:06.200
<v Speaker 6>Anti trust litigation tends to take a while, and you know,

0:31:06.280 --> 0:31:10.200
<v Speaker 6>it could be years or at least a year. There's

0:31:10.320 --> 0:31:12.120
<v Speaker 6>a lot to do and a lot to go through

0:31:12.200 --> 0:31:15.440
<v Speaker 6>their economy, know, all sorts of things, and there's an election.

0:31:16.440 --> 0:31:19.960
<v Speaker 2>So that brings me to my big picture question. You know,

0:31:20.080 --> 0:31:23.840
<v Speaker 2>you mentioned the Biden administration has been i'll say incredibly

0:31:23.840 --> 0:31:28.040
<v Speaker 2>aggressive in the anti trust area, bringing lawsuits. If there's

0:31:28.080 --> 0:31:31.080
<v Speaker 2>a Trump administration, will it be very different?

0:31:31.560 --> 0:31:37.160
<v Speaker 6>My first answer is, whichever administration takes over in January

0:31:37.160 --> 0:31:40.320
<v Speaker 6>of twenty twenty five, things will be different. Things always

0:31:40.360 --> 0:31:44.000
<v Speaker 6>are different. There'll be different leadership, it will stagger is

0:31:44.040 --> 0:31:47.000
<v Speaker 6>sort to be feathered in in a way at the

0:31:47.040 --> 0:31:51.400
<v Speaker 6>Federal Trade Commission as terms run out or maybe commissioners resign,

0:31:51.960 --> 0:31:55.360
<v Speaker 6>they'll be I assume a new head of the Anti

0:31:55.360 --> 0:31:58.280
<v Speaker 6>Trust Division, There'll be a new attorney general. It's going

0:31:58.320 --> 0:32:00.880
<v Speaker 6>to be a new administration. And will they do things

0:32:00.920 --> 0:32:04.160
<v Speaker 6>exactly as things are done now? Presumably not. They'll put

0:32:04.200 --> 0:32:08.600
<v Speaker 6>their own stamp on it. What a Trump administration stamp

0:32:08.640 --> 0:32:12.680
<v Speaker 6>might be, I really don't know, because there are contradictory

0:32:13.520 --> 0:32:19.400
<v Speaker 6>policy themes running around within that thing that we call

0:32:20.160 --> 0:32:23.480
<v Speaker 6>MAGA or whatever we want to call it. So in

0:32:23.520 --> 0:32:28.440
<v Speaker 6>some ways anti trust under Trump did some heavy enforcement things,

0:32:28.680 --> 0:32:31.040
<v Speaker 6>and in some ways they didn't. So it's hard to

0:32:31.080 --> 0:32:35.640
<v Speaker 6>know where that trend is going to go and how

0:32:35.640 --> 0:32:38.200
<v Speaker 6>it might show up. But of course you would predict

0:32:38.680 --> 0:32:41.160
<v Speaker 6>things will likely be different. Would they be different with

0:32:41.240 --> 0:32:45.360
<v Speaker 6>this case? Would this case settle more easily with the

0:32:45.400 --> 0:32:49.239
<v Speaker 6>new administration? So that too is that's hard to know.

0:32:49.360 --> 0:32:51.880
<v Speaker 6>I think it's a good, solid anti trust case. Is

0:32:51.880 --> 0:32:54.520
<v Speaker 6>not a crazy any trust case. Not crazy in the

0:32:54.560 --> 0:32:59.880
<v Speaker 6>sense that it's not trying something that's unusual for anti trust.

0:33:00.600 --> 0:33:03.600
<v Speaker 6>It's pretty much in you might say, the wheelhouse of

0:33:03.640 --> 0:33:06.320
<v Speaker 6>any trust and what it should be. So you know,

0:33:07.000 --> 0:33:09.880
<v Speaker 6>we'll see. But remember the original deal was in the

0:33:09.880 --> 0:33:13.640
<v Speaker 6>Obama administration, so it's hard to pin labels on these,

0:33:14.080 --> 0:33:16.560
<v Speaker 6>but we do. But we do, I know, because it

0:33:16.600 --> 0:33:17.360
<v Speaker 6>makes it fun.

0:33:17.600 --> 0:33:20.520
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's always fun to talk to you and always enlightening.

0:33:20.640 --> 0:33:25.360
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much. That's Professor Harry First of NYU Law School.

0:33:25.680 --> 0:33:28.320
<v Speaker 2>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:33:28.680 --> 0:33:31.040
<v Speaker 2>Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

0:33:31.120 --> 0:33:34.920
<v Speaker 2>subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:33:35.200 --> 0:33:39.040
<v Speaker 2>and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

0:33:39.120 --> 0:33:41.560
<v Speaker 2>June Grosso and this is Bloomberg