Are you arguing that they aren't hurting consumers? Just look at ticket prices over the years as more and more competition was eliminated, as well as the tactics they use to control artists. You aren't going to have much luck I suspect.
[Artist that was super popular in 2006ish] tickets when we went at the absolute height of his popularity were $40 for lawn seats at a local venue
[Same artist] at the same venue in the same lawn seating is now $380.
What's the difference? Guess who bought the venue.
Off to buy some late 90s band tickets!
Disposable income of target audience.
Greater number of people in target audience.
Fewer shows.
Technology enabling more accurate pricing so each customer is able to be targeted to pay as much as they can afford (price discrimination).
Etc.
People who are really opposed to this will probably think this is wildly off base, but if it came to pass...isn't that worse than one company absorbing the other because although the endgame is similar, it's messier and doesn't necessarily improve the overall situation.
An example: Barclays acquisition of Lehman Brothers business in North America in 2008 after the latter imploded. They had an agreement in principle, but the government balked, so it happened after the fact...bringing an even larger crisis along with it.
Personally, I think that if a company can’t survive with competition, it shouldn’t survive. That is a fundamental and necessary tenant of capitalism. It may cause pain in the short term, but it will eventually lead to a healthier market.
As was often repeated back in the Great Recession, if a company is too big to fail, then maybe it’s too big to exist.
I am pointing out that being a monopoly (i.e. the only business choosing to offer a product/service) is not illegal.
Engaging in anticompetive behavior is illegal. And the Justice Dept has accused Ticketmaster of doing that.