trial

After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation is officially underway.

As part of its case, the DOJ has accused Live Nation of requiring artists to use its promotional services when they play a Live Nation-owned venue. Because so many venues are owned by the company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anti-competitive.

Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court and opening statements are expected Tuesday for the complaint first filed in 2024. Since then, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based company has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anti-competitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster should be broken up.

The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over Sean Combs’ sentencing last year, at the helm.

Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster CEO, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and entertainer Kid Rock could also take the stand.

Key claims in the lawsuit

The original lawsuit led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia alleged that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.

The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages over 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and is also increasing its involvement in the resale market.

Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.

The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The two companies merged in 2010, a move that has frequently been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.

“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.

“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.

Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”

“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” wrote Live Nation in a previous statement.

Next steps after the trial

If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation maintains the right to appeal such a decision, if it materializes, and take the matter to a higher court.

“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Association, said in a statement.

“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”

Beyond the current DOJ trial, Live Nation is also facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.

Paris St-Germain defender Achraf Hakimi says he is set to face trial after an allegation of rape was made against him.

A woman has accused the Morocco captain of raping her at his home in the French capital in 2023, when she was aged 24. He denies the allegations.

The public prosecutor’s office in Nanterre, a western suburb of Paris, began a preliminary investigation in March 2023.

“Today, a rape accusation is enough to justify a trial,” Hakimi posted on X, external.

“This is as unjust to the innocent as it is to the genuine victims. I calmly await this trial, which will allow the truth to come out publicly.”

No date has been set for the trial.

Hakimi’s lawyer confirmed in a statement that a “trial has been ordered” and that “it is with determination and resolve that we await this trial so that justice may be served”.

BBC Sport has contacted the Nanterre prosecutor’s office for comment.

Paris St-Germain host Monaco in the second leg of their Champions League knockout round play-off tie on Wednesday.

Hakimi was named in PSG’s initial squad, published last Tuesday.

The 27-year-old was born in Spain but represents Morocco and has made 194 appearances for Paris St-Germain, winning the Champions League and Ligue 1 titles last season.

His performances led to him being honoured at the Best Fifa Football Awards ceremony held in Paris on Monday, where he was named in the Fifpro men’s world team of the year.

Morocco will face Scotland, Haiti and Brazil at the World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada this summer.

Brazil’s President Lula says fate of Venezuelan president should be determined by the ‘people of Venezuela’ and ‘not by foreign interference’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro should face trial, but that it should take place in a Venezuelan court, rather than in the United States, where he is currently being held after his abduction by the US military.

“I believe that if Maduro has to be trialled, he has to be trialled in his country, not trialled abroad,” Lula said in an interview, emphasising that “what matters now is to re-establish democracy in Venezuela”.

“It has to be solved by the people of Venezuela, and not by foreign interference,” said Lula, citing a history of US-backed dictatorships in Latin America, including Chile, Argentina and Uruguay.

“We cannot accept that a head of state of one country could invade another country and capture the president,” the Brazilian leader added.

Lula’s comments come as Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, has been working to release hundreds of politicians, activists and lawyers jailed during Maduro’s residency, which began in 2013.

The Brazilian has openly criticised the abduction of ⁠Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation ordered by US President Donald Trump on January 3.

Maduro was flown to New York after his abduction in a bloody night raid on Caracas. He has since been accused by US authorities of planning to transport drugs to the US alongside other charges.

The US government’s own data shows that Venezuela is not among the world’s major drug producers; however, Trump administration officials have accused Maduro and others of working with the region’s largest drug trafficking groups, including in Colombia and Mexico.

While the Trump administration has claimed that its military buildup near Venezuela and maritime blockade of the country were focused on combating drug trafficking, Trump has laid claim to Venezuelan oil reserves since removing Maduro.

Trump has also invited US oil companies to exploit Venezuela’s oil and said he wants proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States”.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — Peru’s interim President Jose Maria Balcazar was summoned to continue his trial over alleged misappropriation of funds from the Lambayeque Bar Association just one day after assuming the presidency.

The case adds legal pressure to a temporary administration already shaped by political uncertainty.

Peru’s Public Ministry alleges that during his tenure as dean of the Lambayeque Bar Association from 2019 to 2022, Balcazar committed irregularities in managing the institution’s financial income and expenditures.

Prosecutors also allege he ordered profits to be deposited into his personal bank accounts, El Comercio newspaper reported.

Balcazar, a lawmaker from the leftist Peru Libre party, assumed the interim presidency Wednesday following the removal of his predecessor Jose Jeri. News of the court summons emerged only hours after his inauguration.

The first hearing is scheduled June 16, with additional sessions set for June 23 and June 30, either virtually or at the Lambayeque Superior Court in Chiclayo, according to judicial authorities.

A judge ordered the president’s mandatory attendance and warned that failure to appear could result in him being declared in contempt and subject to a nationwide arrest warrant.

On the day lawmakers elected Balcazar, the Lambayeque Bar Association issued a statement opposing his candidacy and warning of multiple allegations against him, RPP Noticias reported.

The association expelled Balcazar permanently Aug. 13, 2022, citing violations of its statutes and code of ethics. It said his conduct caused “serious harm to his own professional association and, consequently, to the dignity and distinguished image all Peruvian lawyers must preserve.”

Balcazar has consistently denied the accusations, saying they lack legal basis.

He also has faced other investigations and complaints over several years. During his time as a judge and later as a congressman, he was the target of allegations including suspected judicial misconduct, fraud, identity impersonation and bribery, along with other questions raised about his professional conduct.

In his first remarks as president, Balcazar sought to downplay the impact of his legal cases, saying “it is not difficult to govern a country” and adding his administration will focus on ensuring “unquestionable” elections scheduled for April.

Separately, former President Pedro Castillo, who is serving an 11-year, five-month sentence for rebellion after his failed 2022 attempt to dissolve Congress, has requested a presidential pardon from Balcazar.

Castillo’s former defense minister and attorney Walter Ayala formally delivered it to the presidential office.

During Castillo’s administration, Balcazar emerged as one of his most visible defenders. He supported Castillo’s government and questioned investigations that involved officials close to the executive branch, local outlet Peru21 reported.

Feb. 18 (UPI) — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify Wednesday in a trial that will decide if his social media platforms and YouTube intentionally harmed children and teens.

The lawsuit in Los Angeles was filed by a 20-year-old woman called KGM in the suit and her mother, Karen Glenn, who claim the platforms damaged her mental health as a child. It’s the first in a group of lawsuits brought by 1,600 parents, teens and school districts who allege that when teens are addicted to the platforms, they suffer from depression, self-harm, eating disorders and more.

KGM, also known as Kaley in the suit, began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at 9, said her lawyer, Mark Lanier. Despite her mother’s efforts to mitigate her social media use, Kaley sometimes used Instagram for “several hours a day.” The app’s addictive features led her to develop anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts, she alleges. She was also the victim of bullying and sextortion.

A Meta spokesperson said the company strongly disagrees with the allegations.

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” CNN reported a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media.”

The company said it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the cases say internal documents at the companies stress the goal of making apps difficult to put down like infinite scroll, auto-play, likes, beauty filters and push notifications.

“These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children,” lawyer Mark Lanier said in his opening statements, NPR reported. “And they did it on purpose.”

The trial is in state court, which means there only needs to be nine of the 12 jurors in agreement. If Kaley and her mother win, it could lead to settlements in the other cases.