rewrite this title Will Trump’s DOJ actually take on Ticketmaster?

In mid-February, the Department of Justice lost its head antitrust enforcer — just weeks before it was scheduled to argue one of the year’s biggest anti-monopoly cases in court.

Antitrust Division chief Gail Slater announced her departure suddenly, via a post on her personal X account. But to those who follow the agency closely, it was far from surprising. For months, leaks about the division described tensions between Slater and her team with DOJ leadership, and President Donald Trump’s penchant for personal dealmaking raised questions about who would really call the antitrust shots.

Over the summer, two of Slater’s top deputies were fired for what the DOJ said was “insubordination.” One of them later described pushing back against a wireless networking deal between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks, peddled by “MAGA-In-Name-Only” lobbyists and DOJ officials. The week before Slater announced her departure, a third deputy also left the agency.

The timing drew extra scrutiny because Mike Davis, one of the lobbyists close to Trump who worked on the HPE-Juniper deal, is also reportedly working for Live Nation. Live Nation did not provide a comment on the reported connection. “What was happening implicitly before is now explicit,” one former DOJ official, speaking on background to discuss personnel matters, says of Slater’s sudden departure. “A lot of very powerful corporations have figured out that they can just push through fantasy deals and fantasy outcomes in ways that were impossible before, and all they have to do is pay.” After Slater posted about her departure, Attorney General Pam Bondi thanked her in a statement “for her service to the Antitrust Division which works to protect consumers, promote affordability, and expand economic opportunity.”

The DOJ and a group of what’s grown to 40 state attorneys general sued Live Nation-Ticketmaster in May 2024, seeking to break up the company they allege used anticompetitive practices to lock artists and venues into its orbit. By allegedly tying together different parts of its business, using exclusionary contracts, and threatening “financial retaliation” to keep new players out of the market, the company succeeded in driving up ticket prices for consumers, they argue. Live Nation said in a blog post at the time that the lawsuit “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices.”

With jury selection in the case slated to begin on March 2nd, many are left wondering if the DOJ will remain on the case. Should the agency settle and choose to no longer be involved in the trial, at least some of the 40 states who joined the DOJ in the initial lawsuit could — and likely would — continue to push ahead with the litigation. “We look forward to going to trial on March 2 against Live Nation,” California’s top antitrust enforcer, Paula Blizzard, said at an event the day of Slater’s announcement. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti also plans to move forward with the states’ lawsuit, Capitol Forum reported.

The DOJ very well may remain a lead plaintiff. Omeed Assefi, who is taking over Slater’s role in the interim, pledged to continue her agenda, MLex reported. As of February 17th, he has said the case is strong and favors trial, according to Capitol Forum. Global Competition Review also reported last week that Assefi encouraged staff to look to his work on criminal antitrust enforcement as a guide to how he’ll lead the division. “Ask them how I feel about settling cases in lieu of trial,” he reportedly said. “Ask them how I feel about accepting half measures and mere monetary penalties in lieu of seeking justice.”

But Slater, too, was known as a serious enforcer of antitrust law — and reports suggest her agenda was overruled.

In general, states are always prepared for changes in their trial partners, says Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley, former Wisconsin antitrust chief and chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Antitrust Task Force. (Cooley agreed to speak generally about the role of state enforcement and not about the Live Nation case in particular, which Wisconsin was part of during her time there.) “The states are no stranger to real politik,” Cooley says. State enforcers understand that priorities and personnel can change with administrations, either in state offices or at the DOJ. This can require changes, like reassigning the most seasoned lawyers to fill gaps left by federal attorneys. But Cooley says there are plenty of experienced litigators in the states. “My understanding from talking with states generally is that this is something they were prepared for, and so should be able to take this in stride,” Cooley says.

The T-Mobile-Sprint merger litigation may serve as a guide. After Trump’s DOJ approved the merger, some states settled their cases, but others continued a fight to block the merger. In the end, however, they failed — a court let the merger close anyway.

States could be more aggressive in pursuing the Live Nation-Ticketmaster trial. The company has been widely criticized by musicians and concertgoers alike, including after infamously bungling a Taylor Swift ticket presale in 2022. In an interview with Bloomberg, attorneys general for California and Connecticut said they’d maintain a high bar for settling. “Any resolution that is politically motivated or impacted, or any settlement that comes from trying to placate the president or meet his demands is not likely to fly with Connecticut or California either,” Connecticut AG William Tong said.

In fact, citizen complaints about Ticketmaster are among the top 10 things state AGs commonly hear about, according to Cooley. “That’s something that the state AGs are going to be really paying attention to.”