Live Nation and Ticketmaster Considered a Monopoly By Jury 32 Years After Pearl Jam's Battle
- Apr 16
- 2 min read

Pearl Jam infamously had a massive battle against Ticketmaster for overcharging and monopolizing the concert scene back in 1994. But they lost in court due to some smaller ticketing companies in existence at the time. Ticketmaster was not considered a monopoly though many disagreed. Now a jury has agreed 32 years after Pearl Jam first brought up the subject.
If you’ve ever used Ticketmaster and/or Live Nation to purchase concert tickets and were annoyed that ticket fees were exorbitant and unnecessary, you weren’t the only one. Millions feel the same and that finally was represented in court this week when 30 states who had sued the ticketing giant after a 2024 settlement that awards millions of dollars was deemed not enough of a penalty to change the course of Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s procedures for the future. The 2024 settlement was a followup to Taylor Swift’s claim that fans were being unfairly treated during her ‘Eras’ tour.
Many felt that the settlement would be paid out by the customers’ own wallets since the companies continued to overcharge for tickets and would just raise these rates even higher to do so.
The states’ victory this week over Live Nation/Ticketmaster meant that the company was deemed an illegal monopoly and that they should be severely punished for massive additional charges to customers. This is a major victory for music fans and artists. Music fans were being priced out of seeing their favorite acts and enjoying music with a likeminded community who treasure music as art and entertainment that can provide an escape from the tougher realities of life. But for years, prices soared and it became about who could afford the experience.
It’s unclear what will happen from here, but hopefully fans get paid actually money back and not any kind of discounts on future concerts. Fans should not have to continue committing to transactions with Ticketmaster and Live Nation to reap the benefits of this case.




Comments