The Brief

On Wednesday, a federal jury found that Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive practices that stifle competition and harm the live music industry. The verdict marked a major victory for more than two dozen states in the antitrust trial against the live entertainment company, and has the potential to transform the concert ecosystem in the U.S.

Live Nation owns, operates or works with hundreds of venues across the country. It also manages artists, promotes concerts, books tours and owns Ticketmaster, which is one of the largest ticketing companies in the world. Throughout the trial, an attorney representing 33 states and the District of Columbia argued that Live Nation wielded too much power over the industry at the expense of fans, venues and artists. Live Nation repeatedly denied those accusations, but the jury ultimately sided with the states, declaring that the company had an unfair dominance in the industry.

Afterward, Live Nation issued a statement saying the verdict "is not the last word on this matter" and pointed to several pending motions that the court still has to rule on. The company said it plans to appeal any "unfavorable rulings."

Several artists and organizers NPR spoke with say they don't expect to see any immediate changes in the live music industry — but they see this is a first step in the right direction.

Having this scale of a win is a huge development for artists.Downtown Boys member and UMAW co-founder Joey La Neve DeFrancesco
Joey La Neve DeFrancesco is a guitarist and vocalist in the Providence, R.I. punk band Downtown Boys. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on the music industry, DeFrancesco founded the United Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW), a grassroots union advocating for the wellbeing of artists. Since then, the group has organized campaigns focused on increasing streaming royalties, merchandising payouts and SXSW payment rates for musicians. DeFrancesco says UMAW heavily supported the antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and was closely monitoring the trial.

"We were all ecstatic. It's been decades that artists have been fighting this company," DeFrancesco says, citing Pearl Jam's boycott of Ticketmaster in the early 1990s. "It remains to be seen what the judge is going to do with this verdict — if we're going to truly break apart this Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly. But having this scale of a win is a huge development for artists."

More than just ticket prices 

The Live Nation verdict comes at a time when many working musicians say they're struggling to make ends meet. As the value of recorded music has decreased with streaming, there's an increased emphasis on touring and merch sales to make up the difference. But artists NPR spoke with say the rising costs of transportation, lodging, food and other factors required to put on shows are creating an untenable situation.

Conor Murphy is a St. Louis, Mo. based musician who spent more than a decade as the lead vocalist of the emo band Foxing and now continues to perform as Smidley. In the fall, Foxing announced it would be going on an indefinite hiatus. Murphy says there's a multitude of reasons for the break, but one of the leading factors is how financially unsustainable it's become to be a full-time musician. He says it's especially frustrating, then, to see fans spending more than ever on concert tickets. (As part of the Live Nation verdict, the jury found that Ticketmaster had overcharged fans in some states by $1.72 per ticket).

"My bands in particular, from my experience, we're not seeing the benefits of ticket prices being more expensive," he says. "We're not taking home more money at the end of tours."

Murphy's not alone Damon Krukowski is a writer, UMAW organizer and one-half of the indie-folk duo Damon & Naomi. He says he and his wife Naomi Yang recently sold out three performances in London, and still ended up in the negative.

"Three nights at our favorite club, sold out, and we lost money because expenses are so high right now," he says. "It's not the club's fault. We love that club and they're transparent about money and everything. It's not the fans' fault. But it's like, if you're charging normal money at a decent, normal club, it's not adding up right now."

Krukowski says he thinks the problem is a wider consolidation of power across the industry — that includes Live Nation, but also extends to streaming giants and recorded music companies. He says the industry looks completely different today than it did when he started playing music in Boston in the 1980s.

"We used to have such a wide variety of partners to work with as independent artists. We had venues that were independently owned. We had record stores that were independently owned," he says. "We had a network on the radio that was community and college radio stations, and we had a way of touring that didn't depend on these huge companies that are backed by enormous capital."

Impact on local scenes

All of the artists NPR spoke with say they hope the Live Nation verdict leads to lower ticket fees for fans as well as more robust competition and investment in small, local music scenes across the country. A study conducted by the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) found that 64% of independent venues, promoters and festivals were not profitable in 2024.

It's a win for the fans and the artists that have suffered under Live Nation for way too long.Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA)
Stephen Parker, executive director of NIVA, tells NPR that the verdict is incredibly meaningful at a time when so many venues are struggling.

"It's not just a win for the states. It's a win for the small businesses and nonprofits that I represent," he says. "It's a win for the fans and the artists that have suffered under Live Nation for way too long."

In past statements to NPR, Live Nation has said that it promotes thousands of shows in independent venues across the country.

In Boston, Krukowski says the local landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years. Two major venues with over 3,500 capacity have been built in the city since the pandemic; one is operated by Live Nation and the other is owned by a partner of AEG Presents, which is Live Nation's biggest competitor. But small clubs and independent venues with much lower capacities have shuttered across the city.

"That means that my friends who play adventurous, independent music or improvised music have nowhere to play in Boston. So they don't," he says. "They go on tour and they don't play here."

Krukowski's not the only one who's noticed a shift. Online, some music fans on Reddit have posted about certain bands skipping Boston on tour, and touring in smaller markets instead. Krukowski says one such place booking notable lineups is Portland, Maine.

There, the Maine Music Alliance — a coalition of artists, venues, music industry workers and community members — has been leading a fight against Live Nation's proposal to build a 3,300-seat concert hall in the city. So far, the group has succeeded in getting a temporary moratorium on large venues in Portland, which was recently extended until September.

Scott Mohler is executive director and co-founder of the Maine Music Alliance. He says the verdict comes at a crucial moment for the group's ongoing battle against Live Nation.

"This is incredible legitimacy added to what I think a lot of people have thought are just a bunch of hippies and hipsters shouting about the corporation for the past year," he says. "I do think that it's going to certainly create more engagement and the council will be hearing from voices that they hadn't heard from before."

In the meantime, individual artists are doing what they can. Pop-rock singer Caroline Rose says they've been avoiding working with Live Nation as much as possible in recent years. They say the verdict is "a pretty amazing milestone" for now, but they're curious about what will actually happen next.

"We'll see how it pans out. I have a general distrust that things ever turn out in artists' favor," Rose says, laughing. "We've just been burned so many times."

In 2025, Rose released their album year of the slug exclusively on Bandcamp and in physical format. Since then, they've been focused on smaller solo tours in independent venues across the country. They say playing intimate rooms creates an incredibly rewarding, almost spiritual connection with the audience — and they say it's been refreshing to focus on those interpersonal connections rather than constantly trying to size up to the next biggest possible venue.

"By far, the most positive and nourishing experience has been working with the venue staff and the promoters that work at these independent clubs," Rose says. "It's a totally different type of show and a totally different type of experience, as opposed to when you get into the bigger rooms and you have better sound systems and maybe there's not a bathroom with no seats on the toilets anymore. But I do think it's important to pay homage to those venues and actively support them and treat them with respect."

The Los Angeles World Cup host committee has quietly posted its guidance on human rights after months of speculation over where the plan was and when it would be published.

Advocates had pushed the committee, an arm of the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission, to produce its plan. But now that it's out, they're not satisfied with what they're seeing.

The human rights guidance is required by FIFA and outlined on the host committee's website. It includes a list of online resources including where to file complaints with various local and state level agencies and a summary of local, state and federal laws protecting human and civil rights. The committee is also touting a partnership with L.A. County in which people can call 211 to report a concern during the tournament.

"Los Angeles is weeks away from hosting one of the largest sporting events in the world, and yet what has been posted is not a plan,” Stephanie Richard, director of the Sunita Jain Anti‑Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School, said in a statement. “It is a list of laws and hotline numbers."

The human rights document also skirts fears around ICE and its potential presence at the tournament and surrounding celebrations. Todd Lyons, the agency's head, said earlier this year that ICE's investigatory branch will play a key role in security for the tournament.

But ICE and immigration enforcement aren't mentioned on the host committee's web page on human rights or in its outline of its approach to human rights. "Immigration status" only gets a mention in the list of existing anti-discrimination laws.

"It certainly could have been much stronger," Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, said of the plan. She added that her organization participated in a roundtable on the plan, and she was disappointed ICE and recent immigration sweeps weren't mentioned in the resulting document.

"In order for all of this to happen, immigrant workers are part of it," she said of the World Cup. "Your hotel workers, your service workers, stadium workers, drivers." 

LAist reached out to spokespeople for the host committee for comment via email, phone and text, but did not hear back in time for publication. FIFA's press team also did not respond to an email from LAist.

According to the host committee's website, the human rights plan is the result of coordination with the city and county of Los Angeles, the city of Inglewood, and 14 roundtable discussions held in the fall of 2025.

"As a non-profit organization, the Host Committee’s role is primarily and necessarily focused on aligning and collaborating with governmental and non-governmental organizations," the document sums up the committee's approach.

The plan also promises more actions, including "Know Your Rights" training for L.A. residents and visitors and "Know Your Responsibilities" training for businesses and vendors. The committee also says it will develop a "rapid response" strategy to respond to potential problems at the tournament.

Available details on those plans were scant. And with the tournament just 30 days away, labor unions and community groups are continuing to voice concerns about potential ICE presence at SoFi Stadium and other potential consequences of the tournament coming to town.

The mayor of Arcadia has agreed to plead guilty to a charge she acted as an agent for China, federal prosecutors announced Monday. She has resigned from her position with the city.

Eileen Wang, 58, faces one count of acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The charge carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison.

What we know about the criminal case

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Wang and Yaoning “Mike” Sun of Chino Hills worked at the direction of the Chinese government and with individuals based in the U.S. to promote pro-People’s Republic of China propaganda in the United States. Those actions occurred between 2020 and 2022, prosecutors said.

According to federal prosecutors, Wang and Sun operated a website — known as U.S. News Center — billed as a news source for the local Chinese American community in Los Angeles County. They posted content on the site, described as "pre-written articles," based on directives from Chinese government officials.

Sun, 65, pleaded guilty in October 2025 in federal court to acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government. He is serving a four-year federal prison sentence.

Prosecutors also said Wang communicated with John Chen, whom they described as “a high-level member of the [Chinese government] intelligence apparatus,” in November 2021, and asked him to post an article from her website.

In a group chat, Wang referenced the article and wrote: “This is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to send,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Chen pleaded guilty in New York to acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China and conspiracy to bribe a public official. In 2024, he was sentenced to 20 months in federal prison.

What's next

Wang, who was elected to the City Council in November 2022, was expected to make her first appearance in U.S. District Court Monday afternoon.

Citing a plea agreement, prosecutors said she's expected to enter the guilty plea within the next few weeks.

Arcadia's mayor is selected from the elected council members. A post on the city's website announced that Wang had resigned her position as of Monday and that a new mayor would be picked from the remaining council members at the next meeting.

The Supreme Court on Monday gave itself more time to consider a national ban on telemedicine access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

Justice Samuel Alito extended an earlier order he issued by three more days, so rules for prescribing mifepristone online or through the mail remain in effect through Thursday at a minimum.

The case at issue

The tumult over the future of telemedicine access to mifipristone started on May 1 with a ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling re-instituted prescribing rules from before the pandemic that required patients to receive mifepristone in person in a doctor's office or clinic.

The Food and Drug Administration determined that the rule was medically unnecessary in 2021. The state of Louisiana sued last fall, arguing that telemedicine access undermines the state's abortion ban.

What is telemedicine abortion?

The telemedicine abortion process starts with a patient connecting with a healthcare provider on the phone or online. If the patient is eligible, that provider can prescribe two medications — mifepristone and another pill called misoprostol. Patients can pick up the medicine at a local pharmacy, or providers can mail the drugs to a patient's home.

That access is a big part of the reason why the number of abortions nationally has actually increased since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. Now, most abortions in the U.S. use this combination of medications, and one quarter happen via telemedicine.

After the 5th Circuit ruling, some providers said they would continue offering telemedicine access to abortion medication using a different protocol that involves higher doses of misoprostol and no mifepristone.

Researchers say that method is just as safe and effective, but tends to cause more pain for patients and more side effects, like nausea and diarrhea. Misoprostol has other medical uses, such as treating gastric ulcers and hemorrhage, and has been on the market longer than mifepristone. It is likely to remain fully accessible, even if mifepristone is restricted.

Since the FDA's prescribing rules for medications apply to the whole country, a change to the rules about how mifepristone can be accessed has national impact. That means it affects states with constitutionally-protected access to abortion, states with criminal bans, like Louisiana, and all states in between.

States' rights

Nearly two dozen Democratic-led states submitted an amicus brief in this case, writing that the appeals court decision put the policy choices of states with bans above the choices of states "that have made the different but equally sovereign determinations to promote access to abortion care."

There are also stakes related to the power of FDA and other expert agencies to set rules. While the Trump administration's FDA did not respond to the Supreme Court's request for briefs, a group of former leaders of the agency, who served under mainly Democratic and some Republican presidents, wrote about this in an amicus brief.

They defended the FDA's process in approving the medication and modifying the rules for prescribing it, and say the appeals court decision "would upend FDA's gold-standard, science-based drug approval system."

Copyright 2026 NPR