In today's CMU Daily: The US government filed its big antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation with the courts in New York. Live Nation wanted the legal battle to be fought in Washington DC and presented arguments as to why the litigation should be moved. A New York judge has now rejected those arguments

Also today: Last month the free music streaming app Musi disappeared from the Apple App Store - the music industry welcomed that development, but Musi has now sued Apple over its decision; Last week’s controversy over the sale of tickets to the US Oasis reunion shows has sparked a war of words between StubHub and Ticketmaster

Judge refuses to move Live Nation’s antitrust litigation to a Washington DC court

An American judge has refused Live Nation’s request that the US Department Of Justice antitrust lawsuit against it should be heard in Washington DC, rather than in New York, rejecting Live Nation’s claim that a previous agreement with the DoJ from 2010 means the dispute has to be fought out in DC. A second claim that pursuing this litigation in DC would just be more convenient was also rejected, with the judge concluding that Live Nation “doesn't come close” to proving that argument.

Live Nation, having seemingly decided it was in its best interests for the legal battle to happen in DC, cited a ‘retention of jurisdiction provision’ in the 2010 agreement as the reason why the DoJ’s lawsuit accusing the live giant of anti-competitive conduct should be moved to Washington.

However, in his judgement denying Live Nation’s request, New York judge Arun Subramanian writes,“this case doesn’t fall within the scope of that provision”. Meanwhile, Live Nation also failed to demonstrate that the transfer to DC “would foster convenience or the interests of justice”.

The 2010 agreement, known as the ‘consent decree’, allowed the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster to go ahead, addressing some of the DoJ’s legal objections to the deal.

Subramanian explains in his ruling how the ‘retention of jurisdiction provision’ in the consent decree works. It basically says that the DC courts should handle any legal proceedings that seek to “carry out or construe” the consent decree, or “enforce compliance” or “punish violations of its provisions”, or “modify any of its provisions”.

Live Nation “doesn’t really argue that this case is an effort to ‘carry out’ the decree, ‘construe’ it, ‘enforce’ it, or ‘punish’ for violating its requirements”, the judge notes...

Renegade Music // Promotions Assistant

Touring Coordinator – Europe // Allotment Productions SRL

UK Publicist // Cosa Nostra PR

Senior PR Manager/Publicist // Infectious PR

Paid Media Manager // Playliveartist

👉 See all current jobs at https://completemusicupdate.com/jobs

Horizon is CMU's weekly newsletter that brings you a hand-picked selection of early-stage career opportunities from across the music industry. Whether you're looking for your first job in music or you're ready to take a step up, Horizon is here to help you find your dream job faster.

👉 Click through to see the current selection.

Musi sues Apple over its App Store banishment

Musi is suing Apple over its decision to remove the free music streaming app from the App Store. The lawsuit confirms previous speculation that it was actually a complaint from YouTube that resulted in the app being taken down. However, Musi says that complaint is “unsubstantiated” and YouTube won’t provide any more information, which - it adds - are both reasons why Apple shouldn’t have blocked its app.

Apple told Musi in August that it had received the complaint about its app, which allowed people to stream music for free by pulling tracks from YouTube. The complaint from YouTube said that Musi “infringes its intellectual property rights” and was “violating YouTube terms of service”, according to the lawsuit.

“The nature of complainant’s intellectual property was not described”, it adds, “and the specific sections of complainant’s terms of service allegedly violated by the Musi app were not named or cited”.

YouTube has directly contacted Musi before, in 2021 and 2023, the lawsuit reveals. On both occasions, Musi claims, it answered questions and addressed concerns raised by YouTube, which then failed to respond to their communications...

StubHub and Ticketmaster bicker over Oasis tickets being touted prior to the official pre-sale

StubHub has accused Live Nation and the US National Independent Venue Association of spreading “false information” after last week’s claims that touts were speculatively selling tickets for the North American Oasis reunion shows before any tickets had been sold via official channels. Live Nation’s Ticketmaster has responded by claiming “StubHub is lying”.

“It is clear that Live Nation, Ticketmaster and NIVA have partnered to spread false information about ticket availability in an attempt to further their own policy agenda and create distrust in the secondary market”, StubHub’s Laura Dooley says in a bold statement.

She was responding to NIVA’s insistence that the availability of Oasis tickets on the resale market early last week, before the pre-sale on primary sites, demonstrated that new laws are required to ban the speculative selling of tickets by touts within the US.

However, it’s been claimed that some tickets for the Oasis shows were, in fact, on sale from official channels from the start of last week, which could have been the source for those tickets being listed on StubHub.