Read one case below and tell me the court ruling and your opinion on the court rulling.

Case : Batson v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc.

Background

In considering the motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of the amended complaint's factual allegations but not its legal conclusions.See Munson v. Gaetz,673 F.3d 630,632(7th Cir. 2012);Reger Dev., LLC v. Nat'l City Bank,592 F.3d 759, 763(7th Cir. 2010). The court must consider "the complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice."Geinosky v. City of Chicago,675 F.3d 743, 745n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). The following facts are set forth as favorably to Batson as permitted by the amended complaint and the other materials that must be considered at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

LNE was formed following the 2010 merger of LNI and Ticketmaster, Inc. Doc. At the time of the merger, LNI owned most of the amphitheaters in the United States, while Ticketmaster was the country's largest primary ticketing company and owned a controlling interest in Front Line Management Group, Inc., which manages prominent artists. LNE manages and promotes many of the top tours in the country and has arrangements with top artists to promote their music and merchandise. In conjunction with LNW, LNE promotes or produces over 20,000 events each year. LNE's shows accounted for 46% of all ticket sales for major concert venues in 2009, and LNE owns the only amphitheaters in 18 of the largest 25 market regions in the country.

On July 10, 2010, Batson purchased a ticket from Defendants to attend a concert by the musical group O.A.R. at the Charter One Pavilion in Chicago, Illinois. Batson walked to the concert from downtown Chicago and purchased his ticket from the box office window immediately before the show. The ticket stated, "$9 PRK PAID," did not include a transferable certificate valid for parking at the Soldier Field North Garage, did not inform Batson that he had a right to a parking space at that garage in exchange for the $9 charge,and did not indicate the specific services or other consideration Batson would receive in exchange for the $9.

The amended complaint alleges that Batson "lost $9 of money as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' practice of forcing consumers to purchase parking by including the parking fee in the price of the ticket.". It further alleges that Batson "was forced to either purchase parking or decline to attend the concert altogetherthe tickets could not be purchased apart from the parking.". Batson calls the $9 parking fee a "forced parking charge" and asserts that it "is imposed as part of a prototypical 'tying' arrangement," explaining that "Live Nation will agree to sell the concert-ticket product, but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different parking product," and that "[c]onsumers cannot purchase the concert ticket apart from the parking at the relevant venues.". In addition to alleging that "[t]ying is against public policy,"4, the amended complaint maintains that the "force parking charge" violates the public policies against drunk driving and disability discrimination, the public policy in favor of promoting environmentally friendly modes of transportation, the public policy in favor of increasing musical and artistic diversity and private-market competition,. The amended complaint also alleges that "[t]he forced parking purchase is unfair because it forces consumers to purchase the parking or forego the concert altogether."