Live Nation boss bragged about ripping off ticket buyers, ‘robbing them blind’

Weinhold wrote in another talk“I have VIP parking up to $250 hahaha.” Baker responded, “I almost feel bad for taking advantage of them.” Weinhold then mentioned that he had raised the club’s prices to $125, and Baker responded, “I wonder if I can get $225?”

Live Nation said the messages do not reflect the company’s overall operations. “Sharing Slack from a junior employee to a friend does not at all reflect our values ​​or how we operate,” Live Nation said in a statement provided to Ars today. “Because this was a private Slack message, leadership found out when the public did, and will investigate the matter immediately. Our business only works when fans have great experiences, which is why we’ve capped amphitheater fees at 15 percent and invested $1 billion over the past 18 months in venues and fan services across the United States.”

The United States and the states said Live Nation is downplaying Baker’s position in the company. “Defendants’ brief does not mention that this individual has since been promoted and now serves as Head of Ticket Sales for Venue Nation, with responsibilities related to all Live Nation venues,” the plaintiffs’ brief said.

Live Nation said in a March 8 presentation that the messages are not relevant to the test because they concerned fees for things like access to VIP clubs, premium parking or lawn chair rentals. “These products are not primary concert tickets, are sold separately from the tickets, and are not part of the ticketing services markets at issue in this lawsuit; they have no relevance to the parties’ claims and defenses,” Live Nation told the court.

Live Nation: Messages could “inflamm the jury”

Live Nation said the sole purpose of using the evidence as evidence “is to present the defendants in an unflattering light and inflame the jury against the defendants,” and that the evidence would “confuse and mislead the jury, invite decisions on an inappropriate emotional basis, and cause unfair prejudice to the defendants.” The company also asked the court to prohibit the plaintiffs from “examining Ben Baker or any other witness about the substance of these Exhibits or similar communications relating to ancillary fan-oriented products and services not covered by the markets and claims being pursued at trial.”