Those in the live industry are well attuned to the need for cancellation insurance for things like adverse weather conditions or travel disruption. But recent years have seen acts pull out of shows and festivals for ideological reasons and opposition to certain types of sponsors being involved. In this chapter from IQ‘s Touring Business Handbook, Lewis Lawrence, senior associate at Russells Solicitors, considers the legal implications for acts who see withdrawing from bills as their most powerful and potent form of protest.

The music industry descends on Brighton in the UK every May, bristling with excitement to see the next wave of emerging artists to perform at The Great Escape. However, in 2024, the festival felt markedly different; it was overshadowed by over 100 artists cancelling their performances due to the festival’s sponsorship arrangement with Barclays, which they claimed had financial ties with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.

The company denied this, saying in a statement: “We have been asked why we invest in nine defence companies supplying Israel, but this mistakes what we do. We trade in shares of listed companies in response to client instruction or demand and that may result in us holding shares. We are not making investments for Barclays, and Barclays is not a ‘shareholder’ or ‘investor’ in that sense in relation to these companies.”

A growing number of artists have pulled out of events in recent years over concerns about the political affiliations or the ethical values of event sponsors. Over 100 artists cancelled their performances at SXSW 2024 due to the US Army and a defence contractor being partners of the festival. Several well-known artists have also cancelled headline performances in recent years, citing similar reasons in their press statements.

In an increasingly polarised world, many performers feel compelled to distance themselves from brands whose values conflict with their own, to uphold their personal beliefs and/or protect their reputation with fans. This raises questions about how the issue should be dealt with when contracting for performances.

“The damage to a promoter’s reputation in suing an artist could potentially outweigh any benefit of litigation”

HOW THE ISSUE IS DEALT WITH CURRENTLY
In most performance contracts between artists and promoters, artists do not have a contractual right to pull out of a performance based on disagreements over the identity of sponsors. Therefore, in most cases, an artist cancelling a performance under such circumstances technically constitutes a breach of contract.

This potentially leaves the artist open to a claim by a promoter for their losses, which could be substantial. Those losses could include all of the promoter’s costs for the show (e.g. venue and equipment hire, staffing, marketing costs), unless the “limitation of liability” clause in the contract caps an artist’s liability in the circumstances.

Despite this, many artists have been able to cancel shows on this basis without facing significant legal repercussions, with disputes resolved behind closed doors. This is primarily because promoters are reluctant to sue artists.

Firstly, court proceedings in the UK (and most other jurisdictions) are public, meaning that a company’s public image needs to be a factor in deciding whether to initiate litigation – especially where the person or company being sued, such as an artist, has a substantial following. The damage to a promoter’s reputation in suing an artist could potentially outweigh any benefit of litigation.

Secondly, there is an interdependency between booking agents and promoters in the live music industry; promoters are aware of the importance of preserving relationships with companies with whom they often have repeat business.

Thirdly, the concept of “safety in numbers” also plays a significant role here. The collective nature of cancellations by artists for similar reasons can make it difficult for promoters to take a hardline stance, and it can put pressure on organisers to comply with artists’ requests. For example, both of the respective promoters of The Great Escape and SXSW have confirmed that they will be changing sponsors for future events.

“The growing frequency of these cancellations poses a question as to whether or not the current industry approach is fit for purpose”

HOW THE ISSUE CAN BE HANDLED MOVING FORWARD
With the above context in mind, artists already have some de facto protections that deter promoters from litigation against them. However, the growing frequency of these cancellations poses a question as to whether or not the current industry approach is fit for purpose and whether or not new practical measures or contracting changes should be considered.

From a practical perspective, promoters would ideally disclose their sponsorship arrangements as soon as possible when engaging with artists; visibility of sponsorship affiliations at the outset could allow artists to make informed decisions about their participation. However, this does not quite align with how promoters engage sponsorships. For festivals, promoters secure sponsorship deals at various stages, meaning that sponsors may be engaged closer to the event date after artists have already signed performance contracts.

Giving artists a contractual right to cancel performances each time a major sponsorship affiliation is agreed (after an artist has already confirmed their performances) would likely present an unacceptable degree of uncertainty and would be impractical if offered to all artists. Artists with sufficient bargaining power could potentially request a list of “banned” festival sponsors within their performance contracts, but this is perhaps unfeasible. The fluid nature of branding partnerships means such lists would require constant updates and monitoring. Unless the list was short (and exhaustive), it would likely be difficult to negotiate.

For artists performing on headline tours (i.e. not festivals), they do have some level of control over the identity of sponsors, given that their identity should be made subject to mutual agreement in performance contracts. However, venue owners often have their own wider sponsorship deals that may not be within the promoter’s control, making it difficult for promoters to provide comprehensive disclosures regarding all brand associations.

From a contractual perspective, one solution is for artist agents to negotiate a “reputation clause” into contracts, which allows for artists to cancel a performance if the identity of a sponsor could cause harm to the artist’s reputation due to the brand’s political affiliation or ethical stances. This is potentially justifiable from an artist’s perspective, given that some promoters seek to negotiate the same right to terminate a contract against artists (e.g. if an artist commits an act that could harm the promoter’s reputation).

However, a promoter’s concern would be that the principle could be open to abuse. Artists may seek to cancel performances based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes a reputational risk. Given that promoters already bear a lot of risk in funding shows, they may find what could be construed as a wide cancellation right unacceptable. The exact wording of these clauses is important. They can be drafted to read more objectively, which mitigates some of the promoter’s risk.

Promoters could also seek to widen the scope of their ability to terminate their arrangements with sponsors; similar reputation clauses (as mentioned above) are worth considering including in sponsorship agreements. However, there would be practical and financial implications to terminating a sponsorship arrangement, especially if terminated close to an event date. Promoters may struggle to find alternative sponsorship funding, which may be essential for profitability.

“With brand-related cancellations becoming more frequent, informal approaches to the issue may no longer suffice”

CONCLUSION
In an unstable landscape for promoters, facing rising costs and unpredictable ticket-selling metrics, sponsorship income continues to be a key revenue stream for events.

If contracts become too rigid or heavily focused on the identity of sponsors, they may reduce the flexibility needed for promoters to engage in sponsorship deals.

Equally, many artists prioritise their values and their reputation in an environment that is increasingly politically conscious and polarised and are willing to cancel shows (and face the potential repercussions) if an event sponsor’s values do not align with their own.

The interconnected and public nature of the live music industry has led to many disputes being resolved without substantial legal repercussions, and after the fact. However, with brand-related cancellations becoming more frequent, informal approaches to the issue may no longer suffice.

Promoters, agents, and artists may find it necessary to take proactive steps to adapt to these issues and protect themselves and their reputations – whether by revisiting contractual norms, artist booking procedures, or transparency of communication over brand partnerships.

As the industry adapts to these new challenges, it will be essential for all parties involved to strike a balance between the financial risk of promoters, artistic freedom, and reputation, and the realities of the ever-changing politicised public.

• The 2025 edition of The Touring Business Handbook, published in association with Chorus TM, is available in print, digitally, and on this dedicated year-round mini-site. To purchase a print copy of the report, get in touch.

A preview version of The Touring Business Handbook 2025 is below.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.

A Californian magistrate has rejected claims by Songkick that Live Nation destroyed evidence relating to the companies’ ongoing anti-competition lawsuit.

Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg, of the central district court of California, ruled on Thursday that Live Nation/Ticketmaster had no duty to retain the documents in question, which include a February 2014 letter from Complete Entertainment Resources (Songkick) regarding Ticketmaster’s fan-club policy, and denied a request by Songkick for a forensic search.

“There is no indication in the record before the court that any party — Songkick, Ticketmaster or Live Nation — failed to preserve documents regarding Songkick’s compliance with Ticketmaster fan-club policies regarding artist presales after 3 February 2014,” she wrote. “To the extent Songkick argues that [the letter] triggered a duty to preserve documents regarding the antitrust claims that Songkick filed over a year later on 22 December 22, Songkick’s argument is rejected.”

Songkick and Live Nation have been locked in a legal battle since December over the former’s claims the latter “exploited their monopoly power” to stifle competition by attempting to force the Songkick to pay service fees for artist-to-fan presales and intimidate concert venues and artists into not working with Songkick and other rival ticket agencies. In May, a judge dismissed a claim by Songkick challenging the 2010 merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, handing an early victory to the defendant.

Live Nation welcomed the most recent ruling. “The absurd contention that Live Nation failed to preserve documents was thoroughly rejected,” Dan Wall, of Live Nation’s lawyers, Latham & Watkins, tells Law360. “The rest of the rulings were run-of-the-mill discovery issues of no great import. Songkick wasted its time and money, and got nothing meaningful for it.”

“The absurd contention that Live Nation failed to preserve documents was thoroughly rejected. … Songkick wasted its time and money, and got nothing meaningful for it”

Songkick, however, disputes Live Nation’s version of events. In a statement, a spokeswoman tells IQ:

“Live Nation and Ticketmaster have admitted to Songkick and to the court that they deleted an incredibly large number of documents in 2015, including by adopting a new email retention policy in June 2015 which automatically deleted executives’ emails after 30 days unless archived by the executive.

“The issue in front of the Court was whether the court should order a forensic search of defendants’ systems and whether they should be sanctioned for the document destruction. Contrary to the statement by Mr Wall, the court did not ‘thoroughly reject’ the ‘absurd contention’ that Live Nation failed to preserve documents.

“First, at the hearing, Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s counsel admitted for the first time that they had been able to locate what appears to be some of the deleted documents on a former employee’s personal computer, as the result of a subpoena that Songkick itself served on the former employee out of an abundance of caution. Whether those emails actually include materials responsive to Songkick’s discovery requests in this case remains to be seen, and the court explicitly invited the parties to revisit the issue if they do not. Second, the court found there was no need to rule on Ticketmaster and Live Nation’s duty to preserve documents relating to Songkick’s compliance with Ticketmaster’s fan-club policies for artist presales, based on a representation by Latham & Watkins – the defendants’ lawyers – that all such documents had been preserved. The relevant portion of the ruling is:

“‘Even assuming, without deciding, that a duty to preserve was triggered by Weiss’ 6 February 2014 [letter], the scope of that duty to preserve reasonably encompassed, at most, Songkick’s compliance with Ticketmaster’s fan club policies regarding artist presales […] Ticketmaster’s counsel represented at oral argument that Ticketmaster had preserved documentation within that scope…’

“Songkick is pleased with its three victories in this court order, and it is vigorously pursuing a clarification from Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s lawyers before deciding its course of action on the fourth claim”

“Songkick has requested, but not yet seen the evidence supporting the representation made to the court. If the evidence is not found to support this representation to the court, Songkick may seek reconsideration of the ruling.

“The other three rulings that were part of this motion to compel were all won by Songkick. These rulings, made in Songkick’s favour, require Live Nation and Ticketmaster, pursuant to court order to produce the vast bulk of Ticketmaster’s ticketing data from 2011–2015, production of which they were unnecessarily delaying before; to re-review approximately 82,000 documents collected from Live Nation custodians and produce documents relevant/responsive to several of Songkick’s claims; and provide critical information in response to an interrogatory Songkick served months ago.

“Songkick is pleased with its three victories in this court order, and it is vigorously pursuing a clarification from Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s lawyers before deciding its course of action on the fourth claim. Songkick will continue to invest its time and resources to pursue its claims, in hopes of bolstering fair competition and creating more value for artists and fans.”

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.