Billie Eilish and the ‘vanishing concert’: testimony revives retaliation claims at the heart of Live Nation’s antitrust trial
In a Manhattan federal courtroom, billie eilish became a central example in testimony describing how a major arena’s decision to abandon Ticketmaster in 2021 allegedly triggered a sharp drop in Live Nation-promoted concerts—an account now being weighed by a 12-person jury as the U. S. Department of Justice pursues an antitrust case against Live Nation.
How a ticketing switch led to claims of punishment—and a billie eilish date moving venues
John Abbamondi, the then-CEO of Barclays Center, testified that the Brooklyn arena decided in 2021 to switch its ticketing provider from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek. After removing Ticketmaster in October 2021, Abbamondi told jurors the 18, 000-seat venue experienced what he characterized as a dramatic decline in Live Nation-promoted concerts, falling from more than 20 per year to fewer than eight.
Abbamondi pointed to a planned billie eilish concert as what he described as “smoking gun” evidence. He testified that he learned Live Nation pulled a planned Barclays Center concert featuring the Grammy-winning artist and that the date was switched from Barclays Center to the UBS Arena near JFK Airport in Queens. Abbamondi added that an Eilish manager told one of his executives that “It was Live Nation’s decision. ”
Abbamondi also testified that after Barclays Center moved away from Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster “pulled up the drawbridge behind them, ” refusing to assist with the transition to SeatGeek.
Inside the alleged warning signs: a text message, a “winky face, ” and an angry call
In his testimony, Abbamondi described what he saw as advance warning that Barclays Center’s ticketing decision could carry consequences beyond ticket sales. He said he received a cautionary text message about six months before the switch from a friend, Patti Kim, a Live Nation vice president. Abbamondi testified that the text warned he “should think about the bigger relationship with Live Nation” before choosing SeatGeek. A copy of the exchange was shown to jurors, and Abbamondi noted the message was signed with “a winky face emoji. ” He told the jury he took it as a friendly warning that he was “about to make a big mistake. ”
Abbamondi testified that, weeks later, when he called two Live Nation executives to explain that Barclays Center still intended to change ticketing providers, the reaction was hostile. He said Joe Berchtold, Live Nation’s Chief Financial Officer, “dropped an F-bomb” during the call. Abbamondi told jurors that Berchtold said it was “going to be difficult to put concerts in Barclays Center. ”
What the DOJ says is at stake—and what Live Nation disputes
The testimony unfolded as the Justice Department presses claims that Live Nation and Ticketmaster use market power in ways that undermine competition. In opening arguments in the Manhattan federal courthouse, the DOJ framed the case as a challenge to what it described as monopoly power and retaliation against venues that do not use Ticketmaster. DOJ attorney David Dahlquist told the court, “This case is about power. The power of a monopolist to control competition, ” adding, “Today the concert industry is broken. ”
The Justice Department and 40 state attorneys general filed the lawsuit in 2024, accusing the company—which owns Ticketmaster—of using its positions as the nation’s largest concert promoter, ticket seller, and venue owner to undermine competition. The DOJ alleges Live Nation pressures venues into exclusive ticketing deals and makes artists use its concert promotion services to perform in Live Nation amphitheaters, with retaliation—including pulled shows—when venues refuse.
The trial’s scope has already narrowed. U. S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed claims that Live Nation monopolized concert promotions and bookings, while leaving the company to defend against claims that it pressures venues into exclusive ticketing arrangements and ties artists to promotion services. The DOJ also alleges Live Nation blocked competition by buying related companies and locking venues into multi-year exclusive contracts.
Live Nation is fighting the narrative. Its attorney, David Marriott, has argued that there is more competition than ever in the ticketing market and has challenged what he described as the DOJ’s selective market-share calculations. The DOJ’s estimates cited in court included 86 percent of primary concert ticketing at major concert venues, alongside a large share of the amphitheater market.
The proceedings have also carried an undercurrent of uncertainty over whether the case could be resolved outside a verdict. The trial began with lingering questions about a possible settlement, after DOJ assistant attorney general Gail Slater stepped down in February. Even so, a jury was selected and opening arguments went forward in the Manhattan federal courthouse.
For jurors, the question will be whether testimony like Abbamondi’s—including the alleged warning text, the heated call, and the shift of a planned billie eilish concert—adds up to a pattern of coercion and retaliation or reflects hardball negotiations in a highly competitive live-events business.
