Nathaniel Marro from NITO Talks DOJ Settlement + Ticketfly Founder Andrew Dreskin On What He Told the DOJ During the Live Nation & Ticketmaster Merger

This podcast episode of the Decibel and Docket focuses on the Live Nation antitrust trial, featuring interviews with Nathaniel Morrow from the National Independent Talent Organization (NITO) and Andrew Dreskin, founder of Ticketfly and TicketWeb.Dave Brooks hosts this solo episode while co-host Mike Seville prepares for trial . The episode includes shortened versions of conversations with both guests, with a full hour-long interview with Andrew Dreskin promised for later in the week.Nathaniel Morrow explains NITO's unique position as sellers to both Live Nation and competing promoters. He believes the trial is beneficial for competition but acknowledges that Live Nation and Ticketmaster will continue operating regardless of the outcome, requiring the industry to work with them. The trial has revealed troubling internal communications, including Slack messages from Live Nation employees expressing negative views about fans paying inflated prices for tickets, parking, and VIP services A major concern is that artists have limited control over ancillary revenue streams. Agents rarely see or negotiate parking charges, and these aren't included in offer sheets for 99.9% of touring artists . While platinum tickets are generally negotiated with artist teams setting limits on quantity and pricing, there are concerns about unauthorized additions of platinum inventory without artist knowledge .NITO's Settlement ConcernsNITO published a statement with five recommendations for improving the DOJ settlement . Key issues include:Fan Data Access: The settlement requires Ticketmaster to provide fan buyer data to artists, but NITO wants clarity that artists can use this data freely through their own CRM systems to promote shows and releases, not just through Ticketmaster portals .Fee Caps: While the settlement includes a 15% fee cap at Live Nation amphitheaters, NITO wants this defined as all fees collectively, not just service fees, and expanded beyond amphitheaters . They argue emerging and mid-level acts are most harmed by high fees, as a $20 ticket with 30% fees becomes nearly $30, potentially deterring price-sensitive audiences from discovering new artists .Amphitheater Access: The settlement allows outside promoters to rent Live Nation amphitheaters, but NITO argues this won't work practically unless promoters can access ancillary revenue from parking, food, and beverages .Ticketing Platform Splits: A provision allows 50% of tickets to be sold on non-Ticketmaster platforms, but NITO emphasizes this only works with equitable seat distribution and proper consumer education.Enforcement and Industry IssuesNITO calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms with protected channels for reporting violations without retaliation, noting that industry connectivity has improved since 2010 through organizations like NITO. They support all-in pricing but note ongoing transparency issues, as agents often don't know final fees until tickets go on sale. NITO strongly supports 10% resale caps similar to UK legislation, working on bills in California, New York, and Vermont, arguing that resale controls could reduce dynamic pricing.Andrew Dreskin's PerspectiveDreskin finds the federal government's pursuit of the case "confounding" under a pro-business administration. He believes the focus on Taylor Swift's ticketing issues misses the mark, comparing high-demand on-sales to denial of service attacks. During the original merger review, Dreskin supported it, believing it would create opportunities for competitors like Ticketfly by driving venues away from Ticketmaster, but this didn't materialize as expected . He notes that while early threats from Live Nation to venues leaving Ticketmaster were more overt, the company has learned to be more subtle, with the mere possibility of losing shows being sufficient deterrent.