Live Nation Fires Back Against ‘False’ Madonna Late-Start Lawsuit Settlement Notice, Criticizes Alleged ‘Harassment Campaign’

madonna late start lawsuit
  • Save

madonna late start lawsuit
  • Save
Madonna, who, along with Live Nation and others, is facing multiple lawsuits centering on her allegedly late concert start times. Photo Credit: Live Nation

Live Nation is set to settle a lawsuit filed over the allegedly late start time of a Madonna concert – at least according to the plaintiffs and their counsel. Meanwhile, attorneys for the Ticketmaster parent are refuting the settlement claims.

The odd disagreement just recently came to light in conflicting filings from the concertgoer plaintiffs on the one hand as well as Live Nation, Madonna, and more on the other. We previously reported on the class-action complaints, which allege consumer harm stemming from purportedly later-than-advertised Madonna concert start times.

Closer to 2024’s beginning, the first such action made its way to a New York federal court; a decidedly similar suit, involving at least one of the same attorneys and a few additional allegations, was filed in Washington, D.C., in late April. The settlement dispute concerns the older of the actions.

Said dispute was seemingly set in motion by a settlement notice submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs this past Friday. Those individuals and the defendants, the notice indicated, had “reached a settlement” and needed until July 8th to move for a formal dismissal.

According to a follow-up letter penned by an attorney for the Live Nation defendants, addressed to the presiding judge and dated today, however, the appropriate “parties have not settled this matter.” Rather, loose late-May talks about a possible resolution created expectations of an offer on the part of the plaintiffs’ counsel, per the defendants’ letter.

But after consulting with their clients, the Live Nation attorneys informed the opposing legal professional that a written settlement proposal wasn’t in the near-term cards, the relevant document shows. Nevertheless, June 6th allegedly saw the filing parties’ lawyer inform Live Nation’s counsel that his clients had accepted a “‘proposal for settlement.’”

Included with the message was a draft settlement agreement, according to the defendants’ description of the “harassment campaign.” Also as told by the latter entities and their legal team, the “false” settlement notice’s prompt submission didn’t leave adequate time for a response.

A purported demand to withdraw the settlement filing having evidently failed to produce the desired result, Live Nation is now asking the court to strike the notice, order the plaintiffs to pay its legal fees, and “issue any further relief” deemed “appropriate under these circumstances.”

“To be clear, defendants are not necessarily opposed to settlement if certain terms can be reached. But defendants will not be harassed into settlement and cannot abide false statements,” Live Nation and others added for good measure.

As to the path forward for the courtroom confrontation – which is far less significant than different legal battles Live Nation is staring down – the plaintiffs have until July 1st to respond to the defendants’ motion to toss the complaint.