Q&A With Steve Provazza: Live Nation and the Rising Role of State AGs

Q: You joined AGG after leading the Rhode Island Attorney General’s (“RIAG”) Consumer Protection and Antitrust unit. What value does that experience bring to your clients facing government investigations?

A: Serving as a unit chief in an attorney general’s (“AG”) office is a really unique role. On one hand, you are an enforcement attorney responsible for running investigations, going to court, and managing a team. On the other, you are operating in wider political context. I was responsible for forming the office’s enforcement priorities and policies, interacting on a near-daily basis with the “front office” (i.e. the AG and senior staff), and responding to stakeholders outside the office like other elected officials, government agencies, and constituents. I deeply understand how both a staff attorney, senior management, and the subject of an investigation have to take into account those different influences and pressures. This has equipped me to counsel clients on how to formulate responses to address what the enforcer cares about at every level of the agency, find unexpected off-ramps, and minimize the business impact of investigations and potential resolutions as much as possible.

Q: There have been a lot of headlines recently about multi-state AG investigations and lawsuits.  Tell us how you can leverage your experience to help clients.

A: A big part of my job at the RIAG was coordinating cross-jurisdictional investigations. I was on the phone multiple times each day with other states, agencies, and federal enforcers. These types of matters present unique headaches and risks for clients, particularly around the confidentiality of documents and information, potential burden given their ability to pool resources, and difficulty dealing with potentially 50-plus sovereign governments when negotiating confidentiality agreements, the scope of discovery requests, and the terms of a resolution. Understanding who is leading a coalition, how decisions get made, and where the pressure points are can make a real difference in how the investigation resolves.

Q: We are having this conversation on the heels of a jury verdict in favor of 34 state AGs in a lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. You were one of the signatories of the original complaint in that case. What can that case tell us about the role of state AGs in 2026?

A: The Live Nation case is a powerful example of how state AGs are stepping up to fill a vacuum, quite literally in that case, left by changing federal priorities. Even when the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) trial team leading Live Nation case walked away mid-trial, the states had the capacity, knowledge, and confidence to see it through. Part of the reason is that former DOJ and CFPB employees have left the federal government in droves and many are moving to the states, strengthening their expertise and capacity to prosecute major cases. For example, Massachusetts’s new antitrust chief and Rhode Island’s new consumer chief both joined from the federal government.

Another reason is that consumer protection and antitrust enforcement remain incredibly politically popular regardless of party. The AGs in most states are directly electorally answerable to voters about how they are prioritizing and executing that work. At the same time that the states are deepening their attorney bench, AGs want to deliver for their voters.

Q: What does this trend mean in practice?

A: The way that states are conducting investigations is becoming more sophisticated and the risks that an investigation turns into litigation are rising. In the past five years, I have seen states focus on bringing in attorneys with trial experience, become increasingly adept at targeting and reviewing electronic documents, and frequently hire and leverage outside counsel. I have also seen states become more willing to file suit earlier on in the investigative process and become much less willing to let a negotiation drag out for months or years.

Similarly, when dealing with a federal investigation in which a state AG might have an interest, clients should not assume that the decisive conversation will happen in Washington. For example, after the DOJ and FCC recently cleared a proposed merger between Nexstar and Tegna (local television station companies), a coalition of state AGs and a private plaintiff still went to court and obtained a preliminary injunction requiring Nexstar to hold Tegna separate and maintain firewalls while the case proceeds. Companies cannot view federal review as a complete solution if a business practice or transaction has local consequences that state AGs may see differently.

Q: What do you enjoy doing outside of work?

A: When I am not hanging out with my 7-year-old daughter or 2-year-old son, I am usually running, mountain biking, or watching a Patriots, Celtics, or Red Sox game.