NEW YORK (AP) — During an ongoing antitrust trial, a Live Nation Entertainment ticketing executive expressed deep regret Tuesday for private messages he sent years ago, describing concert-goers as “so stupid” and bragging about “robbing them blind, baby.”
Benjamin Baker, who oversees ticketing operations for Venue Nation’s amphitheater division, acknowledged his private instant messages were “very immature and unacceptable” when questioned about communications with a colleague several years back.
Baker emerged as a crucial witness in the legal challenge brought by more than 30 states against the concert promotion and ticketing powerhouse, after a Manhattan federal judge denied Live Nation’s attempt to keep his messages out of the proceedings.
Last week, the Justice Department announced a settlement agreement with Live Nation designed to increase competition in ticketing and promotional markets, with federal attorneys claiming the deal will lead to lower ticket costs.
Of the 39 states plus the District of Columbia that initially joined the federal lawsuit, all except six continue pursuing the case. Multiple states argue the Justice Department’s settlement fails to achieve the objective of dismantling what they consider a monopoly and forcing Live Nation’s breakup.
State attorney Jeffrey Kessler attempted to leverage Baker’s private communications to demonstrate that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster division were eliminating competition and inflating fan costs through monopolistic behavior and attitudes.
Live Nation disputes these characterizations, presenting executive testimony that depicts the company as competing aggressively yet fairly with rivals in a high-stakes, thin-margin industry where earnings can quickly disappear while serving the needs of artists and venues that hold the real influence.
Speaking forcefully at times, Kessler challenged Baker with messages he had sent to a coworker in early 2022 discussing Live Nation’s pricing for VIP access at Tampa’s MidFlorida Credit Union Amphitheatre.
In those messages, Baker described the costs as “outrageous,” stated “these people are so stupid,” and wrote “I almost feel bad taking advantage of them” followed by “BAHAHAHAHAHA.”
Baker consistently showed remorse and disappointment regarding his Slack communications with colleagues. He explained he was expressing amazement to a coworker about what customers would pay for extras like lawn seating, premium parking, and VIP access.
When Kessler read Baker’s message about almost feeling guilty for exploiting ticket buyers, Baker became visibly upset, his voice breaking as he stated: “I used very immature and regrettable language and that was not the language I was trying to convey.”
Despite Baker’s repeated apologies and admission he had no justification, Kessler continued pressing.
“You could have charged $25!” Kessler exclaimed after Baker explained his “poor immature language” was simply “conveying my surprise that the market dictated fans were willing to pay $50 to park closer.”
Baker clarified that he and his colleague were discussing only “optional” add-ons that ticket purchasers weren’t required to buy. Kessler countered that for Live Nation, it was “also optional not to exploit every single dollar it can extract from these fans.”
Judge Arun Subramanian upheld an objection to Kessler’s remark.
Subsequently, as Baker discussed increased revenue from amenity sales, Kessler quoted Baker’s own words back at him: “What you were really doing was ‘robbing them blind, baby.’”
Baker, who has received two promotions since the private conversation, attempted to protect his employer by stating his discussion with his colleague was “speaking for myself, not Live Nation as a whole.”
Kessler pointed out the messages were sent as concert fans eagerly returned to live events following the coronavirus pandemic.
When asked whether his company had demoted him or reduced his compensation, Baker replied: “No sir, not at this time.”
A Live Nation attorney chose not to question Baker when given the opportunity.
The previous week, Live Nation sought to exclude the statements from trial proceedings, arguing they represented “off-the-cuff banter, not policy” between two employees who are close friends.
The company also noted that since the exchange occurred through private messaging, executives only discovered it this month and “will be looking into the matter promptly.”
