trial

Evidence in the murder case against the singer D4vd — who is charged with the brutal killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez — will not become public until at least late next month, after his defense attorneys pumped the brakes on a preliminary hearing that was scheduled to take place this Friday.

David Anthony Burke, 21, was charged with murder, continuous sex abuse of a minor and mutilating a corpse earlier this month after Los Angeles police stormed a Hollywood Hills home and arrested him. He pleaded not guilty last week.

The singer has long been linked to Hernandez’s disappearance and death, after her badly decomposed body was found in the trunk of a Tesla he owned at a Hollywood tow yard last September. Authorities said Hernandez was last seen at Burke’s Hollywood residence on April 23, 2025.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said last week that Burke killed the 14-year-old because she threatened to expose the fact that he’d been sexually abusing her for nearly a year. An autopsy report made public last week revealed Hernandez died from a pair of stab wounds. Her body was dismembered when police found it in the trunk and two of her fingers had been amputated, the report said.

Burke’s lead defense attorney, Blair Berk, said she does not believe the prosecution’s case can hold up to scrutiny and pushed for an immediate preliminary hearing during his initial court appearance. Defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing, in which a judge determines whether prosecutors have enough evidence to bring a case to trial, within 10 business days. In Burke’s case, that would have put the preliminary hearing on track for May 1.

But on Wednesday afternoon, attorney Marilyn Bednarski asked that the hearing be pushed back to May 26, citing the voluminous amount of discovery in the case. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo agreed there was “good cause” to delay the hearing a few weeks.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman expressed some annoyance at Bednarski and Berk’s change of heart, noting she’d already warned the defense team that prosecutors had a trove of evidence to turn over.

Silverman said last week that discovery materials would include the results of a wiretap and searches of Burke’s cellphone and iCloud accounts, which prosecutors allege turned up “a significant amount of child pornography.” Law enforcement executed 54 search warrants in the case, according to court records.

The medical examiner’s report detailing how Hernandez died was not available to the defense until last week. Prosecutors also convened three secret grand juries between November 2025 and February 2026 to collect evidence against Burke, according to Silverman. Transcripts from those hearings were under seal as of last week.

Bednarski said Wednesday she needed “additional time to review the discovery we either just got, or are about to get, in order to have a full and free preliminary hearing.”

“We told them that this was what was going to be coming,” Silverman argued in reply. “As I said in my brief, we sent out subpoenas, we’ve been preparing, we’ve been telling witnesses to cancel planned vacations.”

Berk also sought to have Olmedo seal a filing that Silverman submitted early Wednesday that laid out evidence she plans to present at a preliminary hearing.

“The prosecution has appeared to file a rather unusual pre-preliminary hearing brief that appears to be a very one-sided view of what is anticipated as the evidence in this case. But no evidence has been presented by the prosecution in a courtroom. Certainly there has been no adjudication of the admissibility of that evidence,” Berk said, expressing worry that the publication of such materials would taint future jury pools.

Prosecutors normally file such briefs ahead of trial, which include a list of witnesses they plan to call and a summary of arguments they will make. Olmedo rejected Berk’s request to seal the motion. A copy of the document was not immediately available for review at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse.

On March 13, 2013, Fakhr al-Din al-Aryan, a judge at Idlib’s Civil Court of Appeal, publicly defected from the Syrian regime – an act that led him to be sentenced to death in absentia.

In December 2024, more than a decade later, Bashar al-Assad’s regime – the very one he had defected from – was overthrown, and al-Aryan was able to finally return to Syria’s judiciary.

In the latest step on al-Aryan’s journey from defection to exile to return, he was the presiding judge on Sunday at the opening of the trial of Atef Najib, a cousin of former President al-Assad and the former head of political security in the southern province of Deraa who faces charges of premeditated murder, torture leading to death and crimes against humanity.

Al-Assad and his brother Maher al-Assad, a former top military commander, are also being tried in absentia. Both men fled to Russia after their 2024 overthrow.

Fadel Abdulghany, the founder of the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), told Al Jazeera that the moment carries deep symbolic weight.

“A judge once sentenced to death by the Assad regime for defending the rule of law has returned to the bench to apply that same law to one of the regime’s most extensively documented perpetrators of violations,” Abdulghany explained. “This reversal of power dynamics reflects the promise of the rule of law so rarely fulfilled in post-authoritarian transitions. The significance of this moment lies not in spectacle but in its adherence to due process.”

Defection and return

Al-Aryan was a judicial adviser during the early years of Syria’s uprising, which began in March 2011, as protests intensified and the state increasingly relied on security-based rule.

By 2013, he decided that he had to break from the Syrian state and defected in a recorded statement that framed his decision as a matter of legal and moral responsibility.

“In light of the responsibility placed on the shoulders of judges, who are the guardians of justice and truth, and as a result of the massacres committed by the regime against civilians, children and women, … I announce my defection from the Ministry of Justice and my joining the Independent Syrian Judicial Council … to be a strong shield for justice and equality,” he said in the video.

After his defection, al-Aryan joined the judicial bodies of the then-Syrian Interim Government and became involved in building what was described as a parallel judicial track in opposition-held areas.

As part of that, he worked on establishing alternative courts, handling legal cases and documenting alleged crimes committed by the now former regime.

In response, the authorities sentenced al-Aryan to death in absentia and confiscated his property, including assets later sold at public auction.

After the fall of al-Assad’s regime, al-Aryan’s name re-emerged in June after a presidential decree reinstating dismissed judges. That process culminated in his appointment as head of the Fourth Criminal Court in Damascus, positioning him at the centre of the country’s first transitional judicial proceedings.

Najib’s links to repression of Syrian revolution

The transformation in al-Aryan’s life mirrors that of the man on trial in his courtroom on Sunday.

The position of the al-Assad family member as a top security official in Deraa in 2011 placed Najib at the centre of some of the first major confrontations between civilians and state security officers. Deraa is called the “cradle of the revolution” after government repression of protesters there inspired al-Assad’s opponents in other areas of the country to rise up.

One specific incident – the arrest and torture of schoolchildren detained after scrawling, “The people want the fall of the regime,” and the killing of one of them, 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb – is widely regarded as the spark for the country’s revolution.

Najib’s connection to that incident and the death of Hamza is one of the reasons why his trial is so significant in Syria.

The former official was arrested in January 2025 in the Latakia region, where some former regime loyalists had taken refuge.

Transitional justice

For the Syrian Network for Human Rights, the trial is significant because of how it is being conducted and not just who is being tried.

Abdulghany stressed that “this is neither a revolutionary court nor a victors’ court” but a case that has moved through formal legal stages, including arrest by the Ministry of Interior, investigation, prosecution and referral to a criminal court in Damascus.

The charges include premeditated murder and torture leading to death, classified as crimes against humanity under international law. This framing, Abdulghany said, is deliberate: It places domestic proceedings within the framework of international criminal standards, which is essential for the credibility of any verdict.

Abdulghany also highlighted the institutional message of the trial and in particular the inclusion of the former president and his brother as defendants despite their absence from the proceedings and from Syria.

“Physical absence does not amount to legal immunity,” he said.

Despite this, Abdulghany stressed that the trial was not the end of the transitional justice process in a country where hundreds of thousands of people died and disappeared during the war and the five-decade rule of al-Assad and his father, Hafez. There is still little information in many of the cases of the disappeared and imprisoned. The SNHR has documented at least 177,000 cases of enforced disappearances since 2011 with the vast majority attributed to the former government.

Abdulghany explained that accountability in Syria cannot be reduced to criminal trials alone and instead must include four interconnected pillars: criminal accountability, truth-seeking, reparations and institutional reform.

These, he argued, must function together under a unified structure rather than as separate or sequential processes.

Abdulghany placed particular emphasis on institutional reform, noting that Syria’s judiciary was previously used as a tool of repression rather than justice.

“Without these reforms, transitional justice trials risk being conducted through judicial institutions that have not themselves been transformed,” he said, pointing to the need to dismantle exceptional courts and rebuild judicial independence.

Truth-seeking, he added, is equally essential.

Families of victims have a right to know what happened to their relatives, and this right exists independently of criminal prosecutions, Abdulghany said.

“They deserve answers,” he said, adding that recognition of truth, justice and reparations must be unconditional if any durable reconciliation is to be achieved.

WIENER NEUSTADT, Austria — A man accused of pledging allegiance to the Islamic State group and plotting to attack one of superstar singer Taylor Swift’s concerts in Vienna nearly two years ago pleaded guilty as his trial began on Tuesday, his lawyer said.

The plot was thwarted, but Austrian authorities still canceled Swift’s three performances in August 2024. The singer’s fans, known as Swifties, who had flown to Austria from across the globe to attend a performance of her record-setting Eras Tour were devastated, but rallied to turn Vienna into a citywide trading post for friendship bracelets and singalongs.

The defendant, a 21-year-old Austrian citizen known only as Beran A. in line with Austrian privacy rules, faced charges including terrorist offenses and membership in a terrorist organization. He could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison, and has been in custody since August 2024.

The Vienna plot drew comparisons to a 2017 attack by a suicide bomber at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, that killed 22 people. The bomb detonated at the end of Grande’s concert as thousands of young fans were leaving, becoming the deadliest extremist attack in the United Kingdom in recent years.

Defendant regrets his actions

Anna Mair, his defense attorney, said her client pleaded guilty to the charges related to the concert plot.

“Of course, he deeply regrets it all,” Mair said outside the court, adding that “he says it was the biggest mistake of his life.”

Austrian media reported that he also pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organization.

Beran A. is facing trial alongside Arda K., whose full name also has not been made public. They, along with a third man, planned to carry out simultaneous attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates during Ramadan in 2024 in the name of the Islamic State group. Beran A. and Arda K. never carried out their attacks.

Only Beran A. was charged in connection with the concert plot. He pleaded not guilty to the charges related to the plot for simultaneous attacks.

He allegedly planned to target onlookers gathered outside Ernst Happel Stadium — up to 30,000 each night, with another 65,000 inside the venue — with knives or homemade explosives. The suspect hoped to “kill as many people as possible,” authorities said in 2024. The U.S. provided intelligence that fed into the decision to cancel the concerts.

Beran A. also allegedly networked with other members of the Islamic State group ahead of the planned attack. Prosecutors say they discussed purchasing weapons and making bombs, and that the defendant also sought to illegally buy weapons in the days ahead of the performance. In addition, he swore allegiance to the militant group.

Authorities searched his apartment on Aug. 7, 2024, and found bomb-making materials. The concerts were scheduled to begin the next day.

“Having our Vienna shows canceled was devastating,” Swift wrote in a statement posted to Instagram two weeks later. “The reason for the cancellations filled me with a new sense of fear, and a tremendous amount of guilt because so many people had planned on coming to those shows.”

A representative for Swift did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

The trial is being held in Wiener Neustadt, about an hour south of Vienna. The proceedings are set to continue May 12.

Three attacks planned in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and UAE

Prosecutors have also filed terrorism-related charges against Arda K. in the trial in connection with the plan for simultaneous attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

The third man in that plot, Hasan E., allegedly stabbed a security guard with a knife at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, on March 11, 2024. He was arrested and remains in pretrial detention in Saudi Arabia, Austrian prosecutors said.

Beran A. and Arda K. did not carry out their plans in Turkey and the UAE. Beran A. returned to Vienna and then allegedly began plotting to attack a Swift concert there.

Jenne, Schrader and Dazio write for the Associated Press. Dazio reported from Berlin. AP writer Daniel Niemann in Cologne, Germany, contributed to this report.

The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI, and jury selection starts on Monday.

Technology tycoons Elon Musk and Sam Altman are poised to face off in a high-stakes trial revolving around the alleged betrayal, deceit and unbridled ambition that blurred the bickering billionaires’ once-shared vision for the development of artificial intelligence.

The trial, which is scheduled to begin on Monday with jury selection, centres on the 2015 birth of ChatGPT maker OpenAI as a nonprofit start-up primarily funded by Musk before evolving into a capitalistic venture now valued at $852bn.

The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI, breakthrough technology that is increasingly being feared as a potential job killer and an existential threat to humanity’s survival.

Those perceived risks are among the reasons that Musk, the world’s richest person, has cited for filing a lawsuit in August 2024 that will now be decided by a jury and US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California.

The civil lawsuit accuses Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, and his top lieutenant and a cofounder, Greg Brockman, of double-crossing Musk by straying from the San Francisco company’s founding mission to be an altruistic steward of a revolutionary technology. The lawsuit alleges they shifted OpenAI into moneymaking mode behind his back.

The bitter legal fight may come down to a few pages in one executive’s personal diary.

“This is the only chance we have to get out from Elon,” wrote Brockman in the autumn of 2017. “Is he the ‘glorious leader’ that I would pick?”

Brockman’s diary entry is part of the thousands of pages of internal documents revealed in court.

Musk said the defendants kept him in the dark about their plans, exploited his name and financial support to create a “wealth machine” for themselves, and owe damages for having conned him and the public.

He also wants OpenAI to revert to a nonprofit, for Altman and Brockman to be removed as officers and for Altman to be removed from its board.

OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as an unfounded case of sour grapes that’s aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor.

The trial also carries risks for Musk, who last month was held liable by another jury for defrauding investors during his $44bn takeover of Twitter in 2022. Any damaging details about Musk and his business tactics could be particularly hurtful now because his rocket ship maker, SpaceX, plans to go public this summer in an initial public offering that could make him the world’s first trillionaire.

Syria has begun its first public trial of former Assad-era officials, with ex-security chief Atef Najib appearing in a courtroom cage over his role in the 2011 Deraa crackdown.

Atef Najib, former head of political security in the Deraa province, is charged with ‘crimes against the Syrian people’.

Syria has begun its first public trial of officials who served under longtime leader Bashar al-Assad, 15 years after the start of the civil war.

Trial proceedings opened in Damascus on Sunday for Atef Najib, the former head of political security in southern Syria’s Deraa province.

He is accused of overseeing a violent crackdown on protesters there during the 2011 uprising, and faces charges related to “crimes against the Syrian people”, according to Syria’s state-run news agency, SANA.

Najib, who is a cousin of al-Assad, was the sole defendant in court for Sunday’s preparatory session of the trial set to continue next month.

Charged in their absence are Al-Assad and his brother, Maher, former commander of the Syrian military’s 4th Armoured Division. Along with other former high-ranking security officials also charged in absentia, they are accused of killings, torture, extortion and drug trafficking.

Crowds gathered outside the court on Sunday in celebration, as families of victims, including some from Deraa, attended the session.

Speaking to Al Jazeera Mubasher, a spokesman for Syria’s Justice Ministry said holding the trial in public was important to ensure transparency and judicial independence as part of the transitional justice process.

Najib oversaw political security in Deraa when teenagers who scrawled antigovernment graffiti on a school wall in Deraa were arrested and tortured, in a case that became a catalyst for the broader uprising.

Further protests were met by a brutal government crackdown and spiralled into a 14-year civil war that ended with al-Assad’s overthrow in December 2024 in a lightning rebel offensive. Al-Assad then fled to Russia, and most members of his inner circle have also escaped Syria.

The government of interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has faced criticism over delays in launching a promised transitional justice process following the civil war, in which an estimated half a million people were killed. But authorities now appear to be moving more aggressively to prosecute officials linked to al-Assad.

On Friday, Syrian authorities arrested former intelligence officer Amjad Yousef, the main suspect accused of the 2013 Tadamon massacre in Damascus, when at least 41 people were killed.

In 2022, a leaked video appeared to show Youssef shooting civilians who had been detained and blindfolded, with their hands bound.

RUSSELL Brand has confessed he thinks about going to prison “every day” ahead of his rape trial and denies being a “grifter”.

The comedian and actor, 50, who now hosts a podcast is facing trial on three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one of indecent assault against six women from 1999 to 2009.

He denies all the charges against him.

The star, who wore a crucifix around his neck, talked at length with Piers Morgan on his YouTube show Uncensored.

Asked if he thought about the reality of going to jail if he was found guilty, Brand said: “Yes… all the time, every day.”

He added: “I will be with God wherever I am. And of course, I would prefer to be with God with my wife and my kids… I’m not saying that that’s not a difficult image, you know, and a difficult thing to contemplate, of course it is.”

RING IT ON

Harry Styles and Zoe Kravitz ‘are engaged’ after eight-month romance

Snub rumours

Paris Fury reveals the REAL reason Molly-Mae wasn’t at Venezuela’s hen do

Brand, who brought a Bible with him, continued: “We are going to find out the truth, and we’re going to deal with the truth.

“Because actually, I am not afraid of the truth and if the truth is I am going to prison, then I am. My job will be, do not be afraid of that truth, that is what you are going to do.”

The one-time Hollywood star claimed he would face being behind bars “with God” if he was found guilty of the charges against him.

He also strenuously defended his innocence.

Morgan put it to him that there were people who considered him “basically just a massive grifter”.

Brand immediately shot back: “No, that’s what they say about you.”

Morgan added: “You’re very eloquent, you can be very persuasive with the power of your words, but that actually when it comes to any of these issues, you don’t really have a personal principle.”

Brand said: “I do, I do.”

In an earlier interview for The Megyn Kelly Show podcast admitted he had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30.

He said his relationships at the time were “exploitative” – but stressed his sex with the girl was legal.

Brand said: “In Europe and in the United Kingdom where I’m from, the age of consent is 16. And I did sleep with a 16-year-old when I was 30.

“But when I was 30, I was a very different person. I was a lot younger and I was an immature 30-year-old.”

Brand told host Megyn Kelly his relationships in the past were “selfish”.

He continued: “I did not apply enough consideration barely any I suppose really to how that sex was affecting other people.”

At the height of his fame, the actor starred in a number of Hollywood films, including Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek.

His trial at Southwark Crown Court is due to start on October 12.

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

Corrie star Craig Charles took on the Retching Ball challenge with fellow campmate David Haye in a bid to earn food for camp in the latest bushtucker trial

The latest bushtucker trial left I’m A Celeb star Craig Charles throwing up a mouthful of maggots.

The 61-year-old Corrie star took on the Retching Ball challenge with fellow campmate David Haye in a bid to earn food for camp. The duo were strapped into a revolving ball while having to answer questions directed at them by Ant and Dec.

But of course in true I’m A Celeb style they were not alone in the ball cage, as creepy crawlies were dumped on them to add to their distress. Following a dumping of maggots on the duo, David Haye cried out ‘I’ve got maggots in my mouth’ and it wasn’t long before co-star Craig began throwing up.

READ MORE: Mum fumes as family banned from Parkdean resort after “inappropriate behaviour”READ MORE: Police update on teens arrested in connection with 73-year-old’s death as family pay tribute

David and Craig carried on for another round but the momentum seemed to catch up with Craig. As he threw up Ant quipped “Oh I think we’ve had a vomit. Now Craig you’ve just worked out why it’s called the wretching ball,” he added.

Despite his sickness, he kept going but he ended up being sick again in the final round where they were asked to name Adele songs. Craig looked delighted when time was up and he and David were removed from the retching ball to learn they had secured seven out of a possible 11 stars in total.

In a sneak peek at tomorrow evening’s episode Gemma Collins appears to quit again. She told the cameras: “I’m A Celebrity get me out of here. I am done.”

She looked to be in tears again as a stunned Scarlett watched on. It left fans pondering if she had actually walked again, or if it was another low moment for the reality TV star.

On X, formerly known as Twitter, one user said: “Hope Gemma doesn’t go from that clip! I need misery guts David gone before anyone else in camp!”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

NEW YORK — Beverly Hills-based Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary faced a bruising courtroom loss Wednesday after a federal jury found that the company operated a monopoly over concert venues.

The verdict by a Manhattan, N.Y., jury came after a five-week trial and caps a closely watched case that could have far reaching effects across the music industry, potentially leading to the breakup of the companies.

Ticketmaster is the world’s largest ticket seller for live events, while Live Nation is a dominant force in the concert business.

The civil case began when the federal government alleged that Live Nation used its clout to engage in a variety of anticompetitive practices, including preventing venues from using multiple ticket sellers.

“It is time to hold them accountable,” Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the states, said in a closing argument. He called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that drove up prices for ticket buyers.

Jurors agreed. They found that Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers by $1.72 for each ticket. The judge will assess damages later.

Live Nation, which owns and operates hundreds of venues, countered that it did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, arguing that artists, sports teams and venues decide prices and ticketing practices.

“Success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States,” Live Nation attorney David Marriott said in his summation.

Live Nation said in a statement that the “jury’s verdict is not the last word on this matter,” noting the court had yet to rule on a motion it had filed to challenge its liability in the case.

The trial revealed some embarrassing internal communications, including emails from a Live Nation executive who called customers “so stupid” and said the company was “robbing them blind, baby.” The executive, Benjamin Baker, testified that the messages were “very immature and unacceptable.”

The original lawsuit, led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia, dates to 2024. It alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster monopolized various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.

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

Last month, Live Nation secured an unexpected tentative settlement with the Department of Justice in which the company agreed to several structural changes to its business, including adjustments to ticketing deals with venues, capping service fees and paying a $280-million fine.

However, more than 30 states, including California, decided to proceed with the trial. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta praised these state-led efforts to protect consumers, even amid dwindling antitrust enforcement from the Trump administration, he said in a statement.

“This is a historic and resounding victory for artists, fans, and the venues that support them,” Bonta said. “We are incredibly proud of today’s outcome … this verdict shows just how far states can go to protect our residents from big corporations that are using their power to illegally raise prices and rip-off Americans.”

Though a verdict has been reached, remedies for how Live Nation will be held accountable for its actions are still being decided by the judge.

One possibility is that the companies could be split up, an outcome favored by critics.

National Independent Venue Assn. Executive Director Stephen Parker said Ticketmaster and Live Nation need to be separate for the industry to see change.

“Live Nation and Ticketmaster must be broken up now. Ticketmaster should not be permitted to participate in the ticket resale market. Live Nation should not be able to promote more than 50% of artists’ tours,” Parker said in a statement. “And the damages paid to the states should be remitted to the independent venues, promoters, festivals, and fans that have suffered under Live Nation’s monopolistic reign over the last 15 years.”

Serona Elton, attorney and interim vice dean at the University of Miami’s Frost School of Music, said that the separation of Live Nation and Ticket master seems to be “on the table,” but she said it’s too early to assess the verdict’s fallout on the music industry.

Elton said fans might notice small changes in pricing, but there are factors other than Live Nation that are contributing to high ticket prices, such as the secondary ticket market as well as supply and demand challenges.

The verdict, Elton said, “sends a message of support to music companies and professionals working in the live space who have felt like they have suffered financial consequences because of Live Nation’s behavior.”

The ruling is a small but necessary step toward achieving a balanced and competitive ticketing industry, said Hal Singer, a managing director of economic consulting firm Econ One, who specializes in antitrust and consumer protection issues.

Forcing a Ticketmaster sale probably is the only remedy that will bring real change, Singer said.

“We’re not out of the woods quite yet,” Singer said. “We’ve kind of tilted the probability.… It could change the competitive balance. But that requires that a meaningful remedy follows the liability. You need both.”

Fans and some artists have long groused about Ticketmaster, which was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010.

Dustin Brighton, director of government relations for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, agreed that although the verdict is a landmark moment for fans, “it’s not the end of the road.”

“As the court considers remedies, the focus must be on restoring competition, increasing transparency, and ensuring fans have real choice,” Brighton said in a statement.

Times staff writer August Brown and the Associated Press contributed to this report.