Live Nation owns many venues as well as the ticketing segment of events. While the company generated a lot of revenue, it didn't convert much into profits.
It's unlikely this demand will disappear, and Live Nation will be there to profit from this rise. In 2022, Live Nation grew its revenue at a 44% pace, but its operating income grew at a 125% rate. Live Nation has a robust business model, and it's unlikely people will stop going to events and concerts. If all works out, the stock could fund your next event purchase (including the fees). This widespread reach is where much of the controversy of Live Nation occurs. This was one of the tenets of legendary investor Peter Lynch's philosophy: Invest in what you know. This metric can help investors determine how profitable a company is compared to its relative size. This practice only becomes illegal when anticompetitive behavior exists, and with other competitors in the mix, it's hard to make this claim. The remaining expenses go toward paying its employees, and by the time that's done, it leaves $732 million in This helped Live Nation generate nearly $16.7 billion in sales throughout 2022. So let's look at Live Nation's business and see if the fees are absurd. However, while these fees are undoubtedly high, the company's results paint a different picture.
In Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent. Inc Ninth Circuit addressed arbitration and class action waiver clauses on Ticketmaster and Live Nation websites ...
To avoid litigation like the kind faced by Ticketmaster and Live Nation, it is a best practice to use “clickwrap,” which requires users to click a box to confirm their assent to an agreement before proceeding. The other key takeaway is that the website terms of use containing the arbitration clause should be sufficiently highlighted to make it easily noticeable to a reasonable consumer. Ticketmaster and Live Nation sought to compel the named plaintiffs to individual arbitration under the binding arbitration and class action waiver clauses in the terms of use on Ticketmaster’s and Live Nation’s websites. The Court noted that, at three separate points – when creating an account, signing into an account and completing a purchase – Ticketmaster and Live Nation webpage users are presented with a confirmation button with text above informing the user that by clicking on the button, the user agrees to the terms of use. On the second issue, the panel undertook a fact-intensive analysis, ultimately concluding that the user interface provided sufficient notice of the terms to consider plaintiffs constructively bound by them. Plaintiffs appealed from a decision by Judge George Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California upholding the arbitration and class action waiver clauses as enforceable.
Ticketmaster and Live Nation sought to compel the named plaintiffs to individual arbitration under the binding arbitration and class action waiver clauses in ...
To avoid litigation like the kind faced by Ticketmaster and Live Nation, it is a best practice to use “clickwrap,” which requires users to click a box to confirm their assent to an agreement before proceeding. The other key takeaway is that the website terms of use containing the arbitration clause should be sufficiently highlighted to make it easily noticeable to a reasonable consumer. Ticketmaster and Live Nation sought to compel the named plaintiffs to individual arbitration under the binding arbitration and class action waiver clauses in the terms of use on Ticketmaster’s and Live Nation’s websites. The Court noted that, at three separate points – when creating an account, signing into an account and completing a purchase – Ticketmaster and Live Nation webpage users are presented with a confirmation button with text above informing the user that by clicking on the button, the user agrees to the terms of use. On the second issue, the panel undertook a fact-intensive analysis, ultimately concluding that the user interface provided sufficient notice of the terms to consider plaintiffs constructively bound by them. Plaintiffs appealed from a decision by Judge George Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California upholding the arbitration and class action waiver clauses as enforceable.