The BCA had opened its investigation on 12 November 2025 at the instruction of the Minister for Economic Affairs (see, VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 13 November 2025).

As the transaction fell below Belgium’s merger notification thresholds, it was not subject to standard merger control review. In the absence of a notifiable concentration, the BCA instead relied on the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position under Article IV.2 of the Code of Economic Law (CEL) and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In doing so, it applied the Towercast case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, under which competition authorities may scrutinise non-reportable concentrations on the basis of the abuse of dominance provisions.

Key Competition Concerns

The BCA’s inquiry focused on three areas of potential concern arising from further consolidation of large-scale music festival ownership in Belgium:

1. the impact on quality and pricing of adding Pukkelpop to Live Nation’s existing festival portfolio, which already includes Rock Werchter and Graspop Metal Meeting;
2. whether Live Nation’s position in artist booking services could give it the ability and incentive to restrict (a) the access of competing festivals to artists, or (b) the access of competing artist booking providers to Live Nation’s own festivals; and
3. the broader effect of the transaction on the live music entertainment value chain in Belgium, given Live Nation’s large footprint across adjacent activities.

In assessing these areas of potential concern, the BCA gathered input from a broad range of industry stakeholders during the investigation.

Commitments
Once informed of the BCA’s preliminary findings, Live Nation offered commitments to structurally separate Pukkelpop’s operations from its other Belgian activities, allowing the case to close without a prolonged procedure.

The commitments provide for the following:

1. Live Nation will retain formal ownership of Pukkelpop, but the festival’s operations and related assets will be transferred to an entity controlled by festival founder Chokri Mahassine, who may in turn pass the operating rights to an independent third party.
2. This operator will have full autonomous decision-making authority over all artistic, commercial and operational matters, including artist and booking agent selection, programming, pricing, suppliers, staffing, venue, dates, capacity, and staging.
3. Live Nation may continue to supply standalone services to the festival, but only on market terms and on a non-exclusive basis.

The commitments have a duration of ten years, with the possibility of an extension of up to five additional years if market conditions so warrant. An independent monitoring trustee will oversee their implementation.

Having tested the commitments with selected market participants, the BCA considered them sufficient to address its concerns and made them binding, closing the file without a finding of infringement or an admission of liability by Live Nation or its affiliates. Significantly, the BCA has indicated that it “will nonetheless continue monitoring closely the developments in the Belgian live music and entertainment sector”.

Comments

While the BCA did not initiate the case of its own motion, the outcome illustrates once more the authority’s readiness to draw on its expanding toolbox to address perceived market failures and secure concrete results without resorting to a full-fledged procedure.

The approach is reminiscent of that in the Tiense Suikerraffinaderij/Raffinerie Tirlemontoise (TS/RT) case, which was similarly closed without a finding of infringement after TS/RT offered commitments to address the BCA’s concerns.

That case rested on a different legal basis, namely the prohibition of abuse of economic dependence under Article IV.2/1 CEL, and was notable as the BCA’s first decision on abuse of economic dependence (see, VBB Belgian Antitrust Watch of 8 September 2026).

The BCA’s decision comes against the backdrop of mounting antitrust pressure on Live Nation in the United States.

On 15 April 2026, a federal jury in Manhattan found that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary had unlawfully monopolised several live entertainment markets, concluding that the group had exploited its combined strength in concert promotion, venue ownership, and ticketing to shut out competitors.

The action was initiated by 33 US states and the District of Columbia. The Department of Justice subsequently reached a separate settlement during the trial.

The plaintiff states contended that the behavioural remedies contemplated by that settlement would be insufficient to restore competition, given the structural advantages flowing from Live Nation’s vertically integrated business model.

Live Nation has challenged the verdict through post-trial motions and has indicated that it intends to appeal any unfavourable rulings.