The federal judge, Arun Subramanian, is tasked with deciding whether to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster based on a request from over 30 states. These states argue that Ticketmaster’s monopoly stifles competition in the ticketing industry, and they want the judge to sell the ticketing giant, divvy up its large amphitheaters, and restrict its ability to tie access to its remaining amphitheaters to its promotional services.

The jury found Live Nation-Ticketmaster to be an illegal monopolist after a month-long trial in April. This verdict supports the states’ claim that Ticketmaster’s dominance is unjustified and needs regulatory intervention. However, some critics might argue that the breakup could lead to less integrated ticketing and event experiences, as Live Nation’s live music events are closely tied to its ticket sales.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta hinted at additional parts of Live Nation’s business that should be broken up, suggesting that the current remedies might not go far enough. For instance, if Ticketmaster’s pricing strategies heavily influence Live Nation’s concert pricing, a more comprehensive split could benefit both artists and fans by fostering genuine competition across the music event market.

Yet, one could jest that breaking up these industry giants might simply create new behemoths—each with its quirks—like a fragmented orchestra where each section plays independently. The states’ counterpoints to Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly could be as varied as their own concert venues, ranging from enhanced digital ticketing platforms to regional indie promoters gaining national stage presence, all while keeping the music—and criticism—alive and lively.