<p>在追究此案的 33 個州和哥倫比亞特區獲得勝利之際，陪審團最近裁定 Live Nation-Ticketmaster 是違反聯邦和州反壟斷法的壟斷企業。</p>
<p>法院的救濟措施和財務處罰預計將由負責此案的法官裁定，但問題是何時裁定，以及提起此案的各州應採取何種措施以確保消費者能夠儘早獲得真正的救濟？</p>
<p>法庭上提交的證據清楚地表明瞭為何這一壟斷裁決是合理的。內部私人消息顯示，Live Nation-Ticketmaster 的高管們公開討論他們 “宰割” 粉絲的能力，並開玩笑説要 “搶劫他們”，因為消費者通常沒有其他地方可以購買門票。</p>
<p>法庭證詞顯示，Ticketmaster 在主要場館的初級票務市場中控制了大約 86% 的份額，而其母公司 Live Nation 擁有或控制 78% 的大型露天劇場。這種控制程度是垂直整合——一個公司主導供應鏈的多個層面——最明顯的形式，減少了有意義的競爭並抬高了價格。</p>
<p>考慮到這些市場現實，Live Nation 的門票銷售量大約是其最接近競爭對手的 10 倍也就不足為奇了，陪審團最終得出的結論是該公司準備、願意並能夠對消費者收取過高費用。然而，儘管陪審團的裁決令人鼓舞，但單靠這一裁決並不能解決問題。</p>
<p>Live Nation-Ticketmaster 案現在進入了可能持續數年的漫長上訴過程——這一現實已被該公司的領導層承認，他們在全體員工的電子郵件中將這一裁決描述為 “更長法律程序中的一步”，並強調目前仍然是 “照常營業”。隨着 Ticketmaster 表示其意圖積極對抗結果並拖延訴訟，任何有意義的問責制可能只會在遙遠的未來到來，而不是提供接近及時的救濟。</p>
<p>這正是各州現在應利用其影響力的原因——在裁決新鮮之際——以推動達成鎖定真正消費者保護的和解，而不是等待數年讓上訴程序走完。如果 Ticketmaster 拖延這樣的救濟，國會已經在與各州並行推進，這一前景為這些州提供了更多的和解槓桿。</p>
<p>國會已經提出了一項藍圖，正是各州在和解中應尋求的救濟類型。</p>
<p>《TICKET 法案》獲得了兩黨支持，要求所有票價透明，以便消費者能夠在購買時看到門票的全部費用（包括費用）——就像他們購買機票時一樣，同時確保所有票務公司為取消的活動提供全額退款。該法案已在眾議院以 409 票對 15 票通過，現在等待參議院投票。</p>
<p>但實施這一透明度措施，儘管早已迫切需要，並且是票務改革對話的關鍵起點，單靠這一措施並不足以解決行業的問題。各州還應推動和解條款，以開放市場以促進更多競爭。</p>
<p>這一對話應從保護粉絲將門票轉讓或轉售到他們選擇的票務平台的自由開始。</p>
<p>Ticketmaster 通過其 SafeTix 技術越來越多地推動不可轉讓的門票，這使得門票只能在 Ticketmaster 自己的市場上轉售——鞏固了該公司的市場主導地位。司法部和各州的投訴稱，推動不可轉讓門票的主要動機是 “使希望購買或出售的粉絲更難使用競爭對手的票務平台”，而 Ticketmaster 稱 SafeTix 是 “市場份額的產品增強”，並且是 “降低 Ticketmaster 經濟風險” 的機會。</p>
<p>壟斷企業對其競爭對手施加監管障礙並沒有任何促進競爭的意義，任何和解都應禁止這種做法。粉絲們還要忍受多少壟斷行為？</p>
<p>這個市場還應推動行業朝着更開放的分銷系統發展。</p>
<p>航空票務提供了一個有用的模型，展示了真正競爭的樣子。消費者可以通過多個平台預訂同一座位——無論是直接通過航空公司還是通過 Expedia 或 KAYAK 等網站——每個平台在價格、便利性和服務上競爭。一旦座位被購買，它將在系統中標記為不可用。喜劇、音樂會和體育賽事的票務市場也應如此。它應當是開放和互操作的，以便沒有單一的守門人可以從頭到尾控制消費者的訪問。</p>
<p>重大的反壟斷案件並不常見，當它們出現時，提供了重置規則的罕見機會。</p>
<p>通過評估證據並作出裁決，陪審團完成了他們的工作。各州應推動達成能夠立即帶來有意義改革的和解，而在裁決的情況下，他們擁有最大的槓桿。同時，參議院應當採取行動，為開放市場立法。</p>
<p>那將是多麼美好的事情，各州的律師與國會競相讓美國對粉絲更加開放？我們迫不及待想看看誰能贏得這場比賽，因為如果他們中的任何一個沒有成功，美國就會失去。</p>
<p><em>肯·庫奇內利（Ken Cuccinelli）是弗吉尼亞州的前檢察長，德魯·凱特勒（Drew Ketterer）是緬因州的前檢察長。</em></p>

現場之國娛樂

<p>陪審團裁定，現場之國娛樂 - 票務大師是一個違反反壟斷法的壟斷企業，這可能導致法院的補救措施和處罰。該裁決突顯了票務大師對 86% 主要票務市場的控制以及其對消費者造成傷害的做法。各州被敦促利用這一裁決進行即時改革，包括推動 TICKET 法案以實現透明定價和競爭。此案可能面臨漫長的上訴過程，但各州應尋求能夠增強消費者保護並促進更具競爭力的票務市場的和解</p>

<p>In a win for the 33 states and the District of Columbia that pursued the case to trial, a jury recently decided that Live Nation-Ticketmaster is a monopoly in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在追究此案的 33 個州和哥倫比亞特區獲得勝利之際，陪審團最近裁定 Live Nation-Ticketmaster 是違反聯邦和州反壟斷法的壟斷企業。</p>
</div><p>Court remedies and financial penalties are expected to come from the judge overseeing the case, but the question is when, and what should the states that brought this case be doing to ensure that consumers see real relief sooner rather than later?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法院的救濟措施和財務處罰預計將由負責此案的法官裁定，但問題是何時裁定，以及提起此案的各州應採取何種措施以確保消費者能夠儘早獲得真正的救濟？</p>
</div><p>The evidence presented in court made clear why this monopolization ruling was warranted. Private internal messages showed Live Nation-Ticketmaster executives openly discussing their ability to “gouge” fans and joking about “robbing them blind” because consumers often have nowhere else to turn to purchase tickets.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法庭上提交的證據清楚地表明瞭為何這一壟斷裁決是合理的。內部私人消息顯示，Live Nation-Ticketmaster 的高管們公開討論他們 “宰割” 粉絲的能力，並開玩笑説要 “搶劫他們”，因為消費者通常沒有其他地方可以購買門票。</p>
</div><p>The court testimony showed that Ticketmaster controls roughly 86 percent of primary ticketing at major venues, while its parent company, Live Nation, owns or controls 78 percent of large amphitheaters. This degree of control is vertical integration — one company dominating multiple layers of the supply chain — in its clearest form, which reduces meaningful competition and raises prices.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法庭證詞顯示，Ticketmaster 在主要場館的初級票務市場中控制了大約 86% 的份額，而其母公司 Live Nation 擁有或控制 78% 的大型露天劇場。這種控制程度是垂直整合——一個公司主導供應鏈的多個層面——最明顯的形式，減少了有意義的競爭並抬高了價格。</p>
</div><p>Given these marketplace realities, it is little wonder why Live Nation sells roughly 10 times as many tickets as its closest rival, and why the case’s jury ultimately concluded that the company was ready, willing and able to overcharge consumers. However, the jury’s verdict, although encouraging, will not fix the problem on its own.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>考慮到這些市場現實，Live Nation 的門票銷售量大約是其最接近競爭對手的 10 倍也就不足為奇了，陪審團最終得出的結論是該公司準備、願意並能夠對消費者收取過高費用。然而，儘管陪審團的裁決令人鼓舞，但單靠這一裁決並不能解決問題。</p>
</div><p>The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case is now headed into what may be a prolonged appeals process stretching over years — a reality the company’s leadership has acknowledged, describing the ruling in an all-staff e-mail as just “one step in a much longer legal process” and emphasizing that, for now, it remains “business as usual.” With Ticketmaster signaling its intent to contest the outcome aggressively and drag out the litigation, any meaningful accountability may arrive only in the distant future, rather than offering anything close to timely relief.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Live Nation-Ticketmaster 案現在進入了可能持續數年的漫長上訴過程——這一現實已被該公司的領導層承認，他們在全體員工的電子郵件中將這一裁決描述為 “更長法律程序中的一步”，並強調目前仍然是 “照常營業”。隨着 Ticketmaster 表示其意圖積極對抗結果並拖延訴訟，任何有意義的問責制可能只會在遙遠的未來到來，而不是提供接近及時的救濟。</p>
</div><p>That is precisely why the states should use their leverage now — while the verdict is fresh — to press for a settlement that locks in real consumer protections, rather than waiting years for appeals to run their course. And if Ticketmaster delays such relief, Congress is already moving forward in parallel with the states, a prospect that provides those states with even more settlement leverage.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這正是各州現在應利用其影響力的原因——在裁決新鮮之際——以推動達成鎖定真正消費者保護的和解，而不是等待數年讓上訴程序走完。如果 Ticketmaster 拖延這樣的救濟，國會已經在與各州並行推進，這一前景為這些州提供了更多的和解槓桿。</p>
</div><p>Congress has already advanced a blueprint for exactly the kind of relief the states should seek in a settlement.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>國會已經提出了一項藍圖，正是各州在和解中應尋求的救濟類型。</p>
</div><p>The TICKET Act, which has bipartisan support, would require all-in pricing so consumers see the full cost of tickets (inclusive of fees) upfront — just like they do when purchasing airline tickets — while ensuring that all ticketing companies provide full refunds for canceled events. The bill already passed the House of Representatives on a 409-15 vote, and it now awaits a Senate vote.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>《TICKET 法案》獲得了兩黨支持，要求所有票價透明，以便消費者能夠在購買時看到門票的全部費用（包括費用）——就像他們購買機票時一樣，同時確保所有票務公司為取消的活動提供全額退款。該法案已在眾議院以 409 票對 15 票通過，現在等待參議院投票。</p>
</div><p>But implementing this transparency measure, although long overdue and a critical starting point for the ticketing reform conversation, won’t be enough to fix the industry’s problems on its own. The states should also push for settlement terms that open the marketplace up to more competition.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但實施這一透明度措施，儘管早已迫切需要，並且是票務改革對話的關鍵起點，單靠這一措施並不足以解決行業的問題。各州還應推動和解條款，以開放市場以促進更多競爭。</p>
</div><p>That conversation should start with protecting fans’ freedom to transfer or resell tickets onto their ticketing platform of choice.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這一對話應從保護粉絲將門票轉讓或轉售到他們選擇的票務平台的自由開始。</p>
</div><p>Ticketmaster has increasingly pushed non-transferable tickets through its SafeTix technology, which prevents tickets from being resold anywhere but Ticketmaster’s own marketplace — solidifying the company’s marketplace dominance. The Department of Justice and the states’ complaint says that a primary motivation behind its push for a non-transferrable ticket was to “make it more difficult for a fan who wishes to buy or sell … to use a rival [ticketing] platform,” with Ticketmaster calling SafeTix a “product enhancement for market share” and an opportunity to “reduce [Ticketmaster’s] economic risk.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Ticketmaster 通過其 SafeTix 技術越來越多地推動不可轉讓的門票，這使得門票只能在 Ticketmaster 自己的市場上轉售——鞏固了該公司的市場主導地位。司法部和各州的投訴稱，推動不可轉讓門票的主要動機是 “使希望購買或出售的粉絲更難使用競爭對手的票務平台”，而 Ticketmaster 稱 SafeTix 是 “市場份額的產品增強”，並且是 “降低 Ticketmaster 經濟風險” 的機會。</p>
</div><p>There is nothing pro-competitive about a monopoly imposing regulatory roadblocks on its competition, and any settlement should prohibit the practice. How much more monopoly behavior do fans have to put up with?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>壟斷企業對其競爭對手施加監管障礙並沒有任何促進競爭的意義，任何和解都應禁止這種做法。粉絲們還要忍受多少壟斷行為？</p>
</div><p>This market should also move the industry toward a more open distribution system.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這個市場還應推動行業朝着更開放的分銷系統發展。</p>
</div><p>Airline tickets offer a useful model for what real competition looks like. Consumers can book the same seat across multiple platforms — whether directly through the airline or via sites like Expedia or KAYAK — with each platform competing on price, convenience and service. Once a seat is purchased, it’s simply marked as unavailable across the system. The comedy, concert and sporting ticketing marketplace should work the same way. It should be open and interoperable so that no single gatekeeper can control consumers’ access from start to finish.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>航空票務提供了一個有用的模型，展示了真正競爭的樣子。消費者可以通過多個平台預訂同一座位——無論是直接通過航空公司還是通過 Expedia 或 KAYAK 等網站——每個平台在價格、便利性和服務上競爭。一旦座位被購買，它將在系統中標記為不可用。喜劇、音樂會和體育賽事的票務市場也應如此。它應當是開放和互操作的，以便沒有單一的守門人可以從頭到尾控制消費者的訪問。</p>
</div><p>Major antitrust cases do not come along often, and when they do, they offer a rare opportunity to reset the rules of the road.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>重大的反壟斷案件並不常見，當它們出現時，提供了重置規則的罕見機會。</p>
</div><p>By evaluating the evidence and reaching a verdict, the jury has done its job. The states should press for a settlement that delivers meaningful reform now, while the verdict gives them maximum leverage. At the same time, the Senate should step up and legislate for an open market.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>通過評估證據並作出裁決，陪審團完成了他們的工作。各州應推動達成能夠立即帶來有意義改革的和解，而在裁決的情況下，他們擁有最大的槓桿。同時，參議院應當採取行動，為開放市場立法。</p>
</div><p>How nice would that be, state lawyers racing Congress to make America more open for fans? We can’t wait to see who wins this race, because if one of them doesn’t get there, America loses.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>那將是多麼美好的事情，各州的律師與國會競相讓美國對粉絲更加開放？我們迫不及待想看看誰能贏得這場比賽，因為如果他們中的任何一個沒有成功，美國就會失去。</p>
</div><p><em>Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, is a former attorney general for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Drew Ketterer, a Democrat, is a former attorney general for the State of Maine.</em></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><em>肯·庫奇內利（Ken Cuccinelli）是弗吉尼亞州的前檢察長，德魯·凱特勒（Drew Ketterer）是緬因州的前檢察長。</em></p>
</div>

Ticketmaster 的壟斷裁決為實質性改革鋪平了道路