Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 10 Issue 2 Volume 10, Spring 1995, Issue 2 Article 7 "Not for You"; Only for Ticketmaster: Do Ticketmaster's Exclusive Agreements with Concert Venues Violate Federal Antitrust Law? Matthew K. Finkelstein Colleen Lagan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. "NOT FOR YOU";, ONLY FOR TICKETMASTER: DO TICKETMASTER'S EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS WITH CONCERT VENUES VIOLATE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW? America's antitrust laws are premised upon the belief that com- petition fosters the best allocation of resources within a given in- dustry.2 Lower prices, higher output, and better product quality that result from vigorous competition 3 are desirable from both so- cial and economic perspectives.4 The inherent conflict in applying antitrust law is that an effi- cient or innovative company may drive competitors out of busi- ness.5 A question then arises as to whether the dominant firm may have violated antitrust law simply because, through effi- 1 PEARL JAm, Not For You, on VrrALOGy (Sony Records 1994). 2 See National Soc'y of Professional Eng'rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695 (1978). In Professional Eng'rs, the Court stated that "[t]he Sherman Act reflects a legislative judg- ment that ultimately competition will produce lower prices, but better goods and services." Id.; see also Northern Pac.