Roger Alford Testimony Casts Live Nation–Ticketmaster Settlement as Test Case for Political Influence Over Antitrust Enforcement

Roger Alford, a former senior official in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, used congressional testimony Monday to deliver a sweeping indictment of the DOJ’s proposed settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster, arguing it reflects not simply weak antitrust enforcement but a broader breakdown in safeguards against political favoritism.

His testimony came as part of a hearing Monday in Washington D.C. put together by Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Richard Blumenthal to examine the allegedly corrupt way that Live Nation’s massive antitrust lawsuit was settled by Trump’s Department of Justice. The forum, titled “Corruption Takes Center Stage: How the Live Nation–Ticketmaster Settlement Threatens Antitrust Enforcement,” saw Alford serve as a key witness as a former DOJ Antitrust Division insider who brought firsthand knowledge of the inner workings of that department to the hearing.

WATCH: “Corruption Takes Center Stage: How the Live Nation-Ticketmaster Settlement Threatens Antitrust Enforcement

Alford, a Notre Dame Law School professor who previously served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ’s Antitrust Division during the current Trump administration and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for International Affairs during the first Trump administration, framed the Live Nation–Ticketmaster case as “one of the most important monopoly cases in modern history.” In prepared testimony, he said the settlement reached earlier this year should be viewed as a warning sign of “selective non-prosecution” of politically connected companies.

RELATED: Who is Testifying at Monday’s Hearing? And Why is Their Testimony Significant?

The testimony comes as lawmakers and state enforcers continue to scrutinize the DOJ’s decision to settle its long-running antitrust case while a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general pressed ahead and secured a jury verdict against the company. For ticketing industry observers, Alford’s remarks offer one of the clearest insider critiques yet of how the federal government’s deal was reached — and why critics argue it failed to address Live Nation’s control over concert promotion, venue relationships, ticketing, and resale.

Alford’s central argument is that Live Nation–Ticketmaster was precisely the kind of case the DOJ should have pursued aggressively. Quoting former Attorney General Robert Jackson on prosecutorial discretion, he said enforcement should focus on cases where “the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain,” adding: “In other words, we should prosecute cases like Live Nation–Ticketmaster.”

Instead, he argues, the DOJ settled on terms that were far too favorable to the company. He described the agreement as containing “no structural remedies,” limited commitments affecting roughly “a dozen secondary venues,” and damages amounting to roughly four days of Live Nation’s annual revenue. Given what he characterized as more than 15 years of failed consent decrees and broken promises following the 2010 merger, Alford called the outcome “truly shocking.”

The most explosive portion of the testimony centers on how the settlement came together. Citing published reports, Alford said Live Nation–Ticketmaster engaged Trump-aligned lobbyists and allies — including Kellyanne Conway, Mike Davis, Ariel Emanuel, and Ric Grenell — to influence the White House and DOJ. He also referenced reports that President Trump personally intervened following lobbying from Emanuel, and that then–Attorney General Pam Bondi, White House counsel David Warrington, and Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi met at the White House with Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and other executives on March 5, the same day the settlement was reached.

Alford does not present those claims as firsthand knowledge, but uses the reported sequence to support a broader argument: that politically connected companies can secure favorable antitrust outcomes when enforcement decisions are subject to personal and political influence. “The rule of law becomes the rule of lobbyists,” he wrote.

That framing carries added weight because Alford identifies himself as a “conservative populist antitrust scholar” speaking on behalf of “traditional Republicans” who view antitrust enforcement as a tool to protect working Americans. He ties the Live Nation–Ticketmaster case to broader affordability concerns, questioning why so many Americans struggle to afford live music and why the government is not doing more to address it.

That emphasis is notable for the ticketing industry. Live Nation and its allies have long argued ticket prices are driven by artist demand, production costs, and secondary-market dynamics. Alford instead situates pricing within a monopoly-enforcement framework, arguing that weak remedies leave consumers exposed to the effects of concentrated control across the live entertainment supply chain.

Alford also repeatedly contrasts the DOJ settlement with the decision by more than 30 state attorneys general to continue litigating. He notes that the states rejected the federal deal and went on to secure a jury verdict, calling the unanimous decision a “watershed moment in the history of antitrust law.” In his telling, the verdict underscores the weakness of the DOJ’s settlement and shifts credibility toward state enforcers.

“The Antitrust Division’s reputation is tarnished, and state attorneys general are now emboldened like never before,” he wrote.

That dynamic could shape the next phase of the case. The DOJ settlement remains subject to judicial review under the Tunney Act, and critics have urged the court to closely examine whether the proposed remedies serve the public interest. Alford explicitly forecasts that weak federal enforcement could trigger additional checks, including heightened Tunney Act scrutiny, more aggressive state enforcement, private litigation, congressional oversight, and legislative reforms.

He also frames the case as part of a broader pattern under the current administration, pointing to other merger and enforcement decisions, including HPE/Juniper, Compass/Anywhere Real Estate, and Nexstar/Tegna. Still, he argues the Live Nation–Ticketmaster matter stands apart because of its direct impact on consumers and its symbolic importance.

“If there is one instance of the abuse of prosecutorial discretion over antitrust enforcement that will harm the DOJ’s reputation and injure the average American, it is the Live Nation–Ticketmaster settlement,” Alford wrote.

Alford further criticizes DOJ leadership for defending the settlement even after the states’ jury verdict. He cites Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi’s comments emphasizing the value of immediate relief over prolonged appeals but argues this rationale fails to address what he sees as the core issue: a weak settlement in a case where stronger remedies were both necessary and achievable.

While much of the testimony focuses on institutional concerns, Alford closes with an extended discussion of personal integrity among prosecutors. He says he and others in the Antitrust Division “paid a professional price” for refusing to abuse prosecutorial discretion and points to resignations by career attorneys and economists who, in his view, declined to cross ethical lines. He also invokes Catholic moral teaching to argue that public officials have a duty to pursue the common good and avoid even indirect participation in corruption.

The moral tone is unusual for antitrust testimony but reinforces the broader thrust of his argument. Alford is not simply contending that the DOJ made a poor litigation call; he is arguing that the settlement reflects a breakdown in the norms meant to insulate federal law enforcement from political pressure.

For Live Nation, the testimony adds to mounting political scrutiny of the proposed settlement. The company has maintained the DOJ agreement provides meaningful relief and has argued that breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster would not resolve underlying market issues. Alford rejects that position, casting the settlement as a concession to monopoly power and political influence at a moment when the government had an opportunity to pursue more robust remedies.

For lawmakers, the testimony offers a clear rationale for rejecting or modifying the agreement, continuing congressional oversight, and treating the Live Nation–Ticketmaster case as a broader test of whether antitrust enforcement can withstand pressure from well-connected corporations.

For consumers, Alford’s message is more direct: the government had a significant opportunity to challenge one of the most powerful players in live entertainment — and, in his view, failed.

“The precise details of the circumstances that led to the settlement likely will be revealed as part of the Tunney Act proceeding,” he wrote, “but the substance of the settlement was so defective that a bipartisan coalition of over thirty state attorneys general rejected it and litigated the case to a successful jury verdict.”

Alford’s Full Submitted Testimony (PDF)