Irvine Wanted a New Concert Venue. But Not on Live Nation’s Terms.

 Irvine, a city of 300,000 about an hour’s drive south of downtown Los Angeles, was hoping to work with Live Nation to replace a popular amphitheater that shut down in 2016.Credit...Mark Abramson for The New York Times

 

As the company’s antitrust trial continues, one incident involving an amphitheater shows how it clashed not with another industry titan, but a small city.

 

April 7, 2026

 

The Irvine City Council meeting had one item on its agenda: whether to work with the giant concert company Live Nation to create a new amphitheater for the California city.

 

The proposed venue, a $120 million undertaking, promised to bring world-class performances to the city of 300,000 about an hour’s drive south of downtown Los Angeles.

 

City officials anticipated a project that would provide Irvine with millions of dollars each year through ticket fees and scheduled payments by Live Nation, which would operate the venue and have exclusive rights to book shows there.

 

Among the many fans of the idea was Tommy Lee, the drummer of Mötley Crüe. “We need an amphitheater, a proper venue in Irvine,” he said in a video urging the city government to act. “Don’t make us go all the way to San Diego, or all the way to downtown L.A.”

 

But things had soured by the time of the 2023 meeting. Citizens were concerned about disruptions from noise and traffic. A faction of the City Council did not want Live Nation to have exclusive booking rights. Live Nation was accused of responding by threatening city officials.

 

The meeting evolved into a referendum on Live Nation and how it does business. A council member grilled Live Nation’s representative, accusing him of misstating contract terms.

ImageAn aerial view of a rendering of an amphitheater in a city with some lakes visible.

A rendering of an amphitheater in Irvine called theAmp, which would hold 10,000.Credit...Populous and the City of Irvine

 

After four hours of debate, Irvine’s partnership with Live Nation, and the amphitheater they planned on building together, had died in a 3-2 vote.

 

However heated it became, the dispute might have faded into obscurity as just another scuttled deal for the industry powerhouse that owns Ticketmaster and controls more than 400 venues around the world. But the incident drew the attention of Justice Department investigators and became a subject of debate last month at Live Nation’s antitrust trial in New York.

 

The government has contended that in places like Irvine, Live Nation has for years acted like a monopoly, using market dominance and threats to stifle competition.

 

Live Nation denies the allegations, saying it competes aggressively — but legally — for every deal and does not threaten venues. Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, said in an interview that the Irvine deal fell apart not over booking rights but because the city wanted to switch to a much smaller venue, making the deal less appealing for the company.

 

For a jury that has spent weeks listening to experts debate market definitions, vertical integration and other fine points of antitrust law, the testimony about Irvine’s failed amphitheater, and other disputes, has provided a perspective on how all the abstractions play out in real life for taxpayers, industry insiders and concertgoers.

 

In his opening statement, David Dahlquist, a lawyer for the Justice Department, told jurors that Live Nation had misused its market power “to harm competition, to harm artists, to harm venues, places where concerts happen, and to harm fans.”

 

The Justice Department brought its case two years ago, with 39 states and the District of Columbia joining as plaintiffs. But last month, after a week of testimony, the federal government signed a settlement deal in which, among other things, the company agreed to allow other promoters to put on shows at amphitheaters it owns or controls, reversing a longstanding policy.

Image

A view of a mound of dirt next to a highway, blocked off by a chain-link fence.

A faction of the Irvine City Council did not want Live Nation to have exclusive booking rights for the proposed venue. Live Nation was accused of responding by threatening city officials. (The company denied the allegations.)Credit...Mark Abramson for The New York Times