Calls for ACCC investigation into live music industry amid warnings artists may be getting ‘ripped off’

Calls are mounting for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to investigate business practices in the live music industry, as the ABC prepares to air a Four Corners report scrutinising the Australian arm of the live entertainment behemoth Live Nation.

The public broadcaster began promoting the Monday night program late last week, alleging monopolistic behaviour and “maximising profits at the expense of both consumers and artists”.

The 30-second screen promo includes Midnight Oil frontman and former Labor arts minister Peter Garrett accusing Live Nation of “misusing its market power” and “calling the shots” at the expense of artists and consumers.

Related: The Australian company behind Splendour has a rich parent – so why does it need millions in public money?

Before the program aired, Live Nation issued a statement, saying that based on the promotional material it had seen the company was expecting an “inaccurate and unbalanced” story.

“The program was obviously fully formed without any input from Live Nation,” the statement said.

Australia’s live entertainment industry remained highly competitive, evidenced by Live Nation being one of many live music promoters in the country, the statement said.

The ABC said in a statement the broadcaster had “full confidence” in the work of Music For Sale journalist, Avani Dias.

In a statement on Monday, the Greens’ spokesperson for the arts, Sarah Hanson-Young, said ABC was looking to shine a light on “just how much artists and music audiences may be getting ripped off”.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

“Credible reports of ticket price gouging, super surge pricing and hidden ticket charges are all serious concerns and matters for the the ACCC.

“Multinational corporations like Live Nation own large parts of this supply chain and are clearly making billions, but we need to make sure that the local artists, audiences and small-to-medium venues we love are getting a fair deal.”

Dr Sam Whiting, a cultural economy academic at RMIT University, said without government intervention, independent Australian venues and festivals would continue to struggle for survival while multinationals such as Live Nation and TEG continued to consolidate their market power.

“The Australian government and the ACCC have multiple levers through which to respond to this, such as introducing greater transparency as to which costs are passed on to consumers and potentially pursuing Live Nation for monopoly-like behaviour,” he said.

“Meanwhile, as Live Nation continues to be the sole buyer and a lack of regulation persists, their monopoly power will only grow.”

The Guardian has published several articles this year examining Live Nation’s business practices in Australia, exposing the millions of dollars it has has received from state and federal governments and examining the antitrust lawsuit brought against the company by the US Department of Justice.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, the multinational last year recorded a net profit of US$563m (A$834m). Its third-largest shareholder is Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund, controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman .

Yet Live Nation Australia and its subsidiaries have collected more than A$24m in federal and state government grants since Covid-19, including $8m from the West Australian government to subsidise two Coldplay concerts in Perth last year.

Earlier this year a number of music promoters, producers and ticket company owners alleged to the Guardian that festival goers and artists were losing out because of Live Nation’s vertically integrated business model, where it owns or manages venues, represents artists and holds exclusive ticketing rights through Ticketmaster.

Artist were being forced into “preposterous contracts” that heavily restricted them from playing at alternative gigs or venues run by Live Nation competitors, one insider alleged.

In July the ACCC told the parliamentary inquiry it was following the US lawsuit closely and acknowledged there was “some consistency in behaviours” exercised by Live Nation in Australia that were now the subject of the lawsuit in the US, brought by the Department of Justice and 30 US states, which is now into its sixth month.

The civil action is seeking to split Live Nation and Ticketmaster, which was acquired a decade ago, on the grounds the company engages in “unlawful, anti-competitive conduct” and exercises “monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States”.

The investigation was announced in the wake of botched ticket sales for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour in 2022.

Related: European Commission to examine Ticketmaster’s ‘dynamic pricing’

Last month the European Commission and UK’s Competition and Markets Authority began investigating Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing practices after the cost of Oasis tickets almost tripled in price while thousands of fans queued online.

In statements posted on its website , Live Nation said the US lawsuit will do nothing to reduce ticket prices and service fees for concerts, that its net profits proved it did not wield monopoly power and there was more competition than ever in the live music industry.

In the statement addressing the Four Corners program, Live Nation said Ticketmaster did not set ticket prices, “nor do we have or offer algorithmic surge pricing technologies”.

“However, like other ticketing companies, we have tools to help artist teams understand demand for their tickets. It is the artist teams who decide which tools to use and how to best balance revenue goals with fan access,” the statement said.

James Naughton, partner at the Melbourne-based lawyers Gordon Legal, confirmed that after being contacted by a number of people with concerns about Live Nation’s “dynamic pricing model and their ticketing model” they are investigating potential claims against the company.