But when the Americans kick off a once-in-a-generation World Cup in Southern California next week, many of those die-hard supporters may be harder to hear because FIFA seated them in the “nose bleeds,” according to a major U.S. fan group.

“These are the worst tickets that I’ve ever seen out of the five World Cups I’ve been to,” American Outlaws President Brian Hexsel said in a phone interview.

FIFA’s World Cup ticketing rollout has faced withering criticism for months, particularly for its sky-high prices. There have also been allegations that some ticket buyers got worse seats than expected, sparking investigations in New York and New Jersey.

In the blowback, soccer’s global governing body announced a small allotment of $60 tickets for each of the tournament’s 104 matches.

FIFA didn’t immediately comment for this article.

Participating member associations, including U.S. Soccer, would manage “the selection and distribution process,” said FIFA, which emphasized it was asking the associations to “ensure that these tickets are specifically allocated to loyal fans who are closely connected to their national teams.”

The American Outlaws are such fans. The organization says it has more than 200 chapters worldwide sharing one goal: cheering on U.S. Soccer’s teams. The group travels to matches with hand-painted banners, a giant American flag, drums and organized chants — all of it typically on display right behind the net.

But this summer, American Outlaws members with $60 tickets will be in upper decks at each of the team’s three group stage matches, Hexsel said. That seating arrangement means some of the most fervent fans will be physically farther from the pitch, potentially making it harder for players to hear their shouts.

Hexsel said U.S. Soccer told him Monday that the $60 seats will be in sections 302 through 310 for the team’s first match against Paraguay at Los Angeles County’s SoFi Stadium, sections 310 through 315 in Seattle’s Lumen Field for the second match against Australia and section 426 for the third match back at SoFi against Turkey — putting fans even higher than they’d be seated for the first match.

U.S. Soccer told NBC News the $60 tickets are in sections 306 through 310 for the Paraguay match, sections 302 through 304 for the Australia match and sections 426 through 431 against Turkey. It didn’t provide further comment.

When the tickets started landing in people’s accounts Monday night, “my phone just blew up,” Hexsel said. “Everybody was pissed.”

It’s not clear whether fan groups for the World Cup’s other competing countries have been affected in the same way.

Juan Felipe Garay, coordinator of Colombia’s biggest supporters’ group, Fiebre Amarilla, told NBC News the group doesn’t yet know where its $60 seats will be for Colombia’s matches.

But Hexsel said that without question, for the American die-hards, a World Cup in their own backyard now “does not feel like we are playing in the U.S.”

South Florida superfan Burak, who asked that his last name not be published for privacy, told NBC News on Monday night that a ticket in the “400s” showed up in his account for the third U.S. match.

Burak said he laughed with his wife about the situation and hadn’t expected better seats. He prefers being high up at a match when he’s trying to “read the play.” But, he said, watching is secondary to making an impact when you’re in the supporters’ section.

“If you’re up at nosebleed 400s, your reaction doesn’t even matter. No one’s going to hear, see or notice,” he wrote in a text message.

Another U.S. fan, Gabriel Miguel, said, “I thought it could be worse.”

Miguel scored $60 tickets to the opening U.S. match against Paraguay. He’ll be in section 308 and said he’s “mostly grateful” just to be in the building.

“I would love to have been down in the lower action, but I mean, 300s is perfectly fine, especially for that price.”

American supporter Logan Pedersen said, “We could have been higher up … not by far.”

Pedersen said in a phone interview that he got “the golden ticket,” getting to see the opening U.S. match at such a relatively low cost. He’s “just glad to be in the stadium,” but he also said FIFA’s ticketing “process has been a nightmare.”

“It’s still super disappointing from FIFA that they’re not at least designating a section for, you know, 500 fans from each team directly behind the goal. I think it’s a huge loss for the atmosphere that’s gonna go on in the stadium,” he said.

Hexsel said of the seating arrangements, “It just means we gotta bring more drums and more noise to show the team that … we still showed up.”

“FIFA could have just said: ‘Hey … it’s 300, it’s 200. Yeah, it’s a little bit more than what you paid in Qatar, but you guys have a block of seats where you’ve always had a block of seats,’ and people would have paid it.”

Burak said by text message: “I’m just glad I can at least go to some games with the supporter price. I accept my small guy status. If we had a strong community, I’d be all about boycotting the WC all together. But that’s not how people are, that will never happen. And Fifa is feeding off of that. They know someone will show up.”

Said Miguel: “I’m happy to be going, at least, and it’s more like memories than anything. Could it be better? Of course. But … they dropped the ball from the beginning with this. It’s … nothing surprising at this point.”

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the commissioner Monday requesting his appearance at a hearing June 10 examining the league’s TV deals and their compliance with the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

The 65-year-old law grants professional sports leagues limited antitrust immunity, allowing them to pool their media rights and negotiate as a single entity while protecting them from antitrust lawsuits.

The law applies only to broadcast networks. Courts have ruled in the past that it does not apply to other media, including cable, satellite and streaming. There has been bipartisan sentiment in favor of updating the law, and President Donald Trump has been among the critics of the NFL’s embrace of streaming.

According to Jordan’s letter, the hearing next week will “examine the extent to which the antitrust exemption created by the SBA has been used by the professional sports leagues to harm consumers and whether potential legislative remedies may be needed to address that harm.”

An NFL spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

The move by Congress comes as the Justice Department is investigating the NFL for potential anticompetitive practices. Speaking in April when the probe was disclosed, a government official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name, said it was “about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers.”

In March, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote a letter to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission urging them to review whether the NFL’s distribution methods comply with the 1961 law. The FTC has sought comments from the public on the shift of live sports from broadcast channels to streaming services.

The NFL has said 87% of its games are available on free television, and games aired exclusively on cable or streaming services remain available over the air in the home markets of the competing teams.

The league has broadcast or streaming deals with CBS/Paramount+, NBC/Peacock, ABC/ESPN/ESPN+, Fox, NFL Network, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and YouTube TV. Thursday night games moved to Prime Video in 2022, and the league has since moved a wild-card playoff game, Christmas Day games and a Black Friday game to streamers.

This season, Netflix will stream an opening-week game between the San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams in Melbourne, Australia, and a Green Bay Packers-Rams game the day before Thanksgiving.

“Democratic institutions take much time, effort, and patience to build but can be torn down all too quickly,” Powell said in remarks ​prepared for delivery as he accepted the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, given by ​the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

“It is essential that we preserve what is good about ⁠these institutions, even as we strive to improve them,” said Powell, who included the Fed along with the ​courts and universities as among the core institutions key to the country’s success and standing in the world.

“Like ​many other institutions, the Fed has been undergoing a stress test,” Powell said, which in the central bank’s case has included efforts by President Donald Trump to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, calls for Powell’s resignation and a criminal probe of Powell.

Powell’s ​term as chair formally ended on May 15. His successor, Kevin Warsh, was sworn in as Fed chair on ​May 22. Powell has decided to continue as a Fed governor in part because of what he regards as ongoing threats ‌to ⁠the Fed’s independence, a decision that effectively prevents Trump from appointing another member to the Fed board for now.

The Fed’s structure is meant to allow it to make monetary policy decisions free of political considerations, and “these protections have served the public well, and administrations from both parties have respected them,” Powell said. “If any administration finds a ​way to remove Fed officials ​over policy differences, then ⁠future administrations will do so as well. The public would lose faith that the central bank will make decisions based only on what’s best for all Americans.”

In ​announcing the award to Powell earlier this year, the foundation said he had “safeguarded one ​of the country’s ⁠most essential apolitical institutions and demonstrated extraordinary courage in the face of sustained personal and professional risk.”

The award this year was also given to the citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul for the public response to the surge ⁠in immigration ​enforcement in the Twin Cities area, including protests and efforts to monitor ​government enforcement efforts.

Baseball owners hadn’t proposed a firm cap since 1994. Their effort prompted a 7 1/2-month strike that forced the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

MLB’s proposal would cap spending in 2027 at $245.3 million, using figures for luxury tax payrolls that include benefits and the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and establish a payroll floor of $171.2 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers, baseball’s biggest spenders, had a $415.2 million payroll on opening day this year — around $170 million over the proposed cap.

Owners said they would discuss a phase-in schedule that would give teams like the Dodgers time to comply with the cap and an escrow system with the union as part of a proposed seven-year deal, that all current contracts would remain guaranteed and there would be no prohibition of guaranteed contracts under the cap system.

MLB said it would centralize local media revenue from the 30 teams equally and give players a 50-50 split as part of a proposal that would eliminate the current revenue-sharing plan among the clubs.

“Our salary cap and floor proposal levels the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50/50 as we grow the game together,” MLB spokesman Glen Caplin said in a statement. “Further, by sharing media revenue equally as part of our proposal, we can address another top fan concern of local TV blackouts.”

Baseball’s current five-year deal, agreed to in March 2022 after a 99-day lockout, expires Dec. 2. While a lockout next winter is expected, talks are not likely to intensify until late February or early March 2027, when the possibilities of losing regular-season games and revenue near. If regular-season games are lost, negotiations may become a standoff of which side can tolerate the most economic loss.

Based on 2026 opening day figures, eight teams would have to cut payroll to get under the cap. The teams over are the two-time reigning World Series champion Dodgers, New York Mets ($379.2 million), New York Yankees ($339.6 million), Toronto ($319.5 million), Philadelphia ($315.2 million), Boston ($263.7 million), San Diego ($260.1 million) and Atlanta ($247.9 million).

Twelve teams would be required to increase payroll by a total of $617 million based on 2026 numbers: Miami ($81.8 million), Cleveland ($95.7 million), Tampa Bay ($108.2 million), the Chicago White Sox ($108.6 million), St. Louis ($114.4 million), Washington ($119.1 million), Pittsburgh ($122.6 million), Minnesota ($125.6 million), Milwaukee ($130.9 million), the Athletics ($139.2 million), Colorado ($142.2 million) and Cincinnati ($148.8 million).

Owners and the union agreed to a luxury tax in 2003 designed to slow spending, but teams feel it has had little or no impact on the Dodgers and Mets in recent years. The last small-market MLB club to win a World Series was Kansas City in 2015, although Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee all lead their divisions as of Thursday, while the Mets and Red Sox are in last place.

MLB said its revenue has grown by 247% since 2003 and player payroll has increased by 149% in that span.

Management gave the union its latest plan during a bargaining session at the commissioner’s office, one day after the union made its economic proposal. Owners say a cap is needed to improve competitive balance and restrain wealthy teams from assembling starrier rosters than their smaller-market brethren.

Players want expanded free agency and salary arbitration rights along with almost doubling the major league minimum, increasing the money high-revenue teams share with the less-wealthy clubs and establishing penalties for teams that drop below payroll floors.

Other U.S. major sports leagues operate under a cap. The NBA had a cap in its initial season in 1946-47, then dropped that and began its modern version in 1984-85. NFL players and owners adopted a cap for the 1994 season, and the NHL did so in 2005-06 after a lockout wiped out the entire 2004-05 season.

The Dodgers shattered MLB’s spending record with a combined $515 million in payroll and luxury tax last year en route to their second straight World Series title. Los Angeles’ total was seven times the $68.7 million payroll of the Marlins, the lowest-spending team, and more than the payrolls of the bottom six clubs combined.

Players say a cap would hurt them and enrich owners, and they say they will never agree to one. Without a cap, MLB stars have landed lucrative, guaranteed contracts that outpace what the biggest stars in other U.S. sports leagues make. Juan Soto’s $765 million, 15-year contract with the Mets is believed to be the biggest ever in team sports and is far greater than the largest deals in the NFL (Patrick Mahomes at $450 million over 10 years) and NBA (Jayson Tatum at $314 million over five years).

MLB’s last salary cap proposal in 1994 offered players a 50-50 split of revenue in a system that would have forced teams to maintain payrolls of 84%-110% of the average. Salary arbitration would have been eliminated and the threshold for free agency would have been lowered from six years’ major league service to four — with the provision that a player’s former club could match any offer until he had six years.

MLB’s offer came on June 14 that year, and players struck on Aug. 12. MLB withdrew the cap proposal the following Feb. 6 after pressure by the National Labor Relations Board. The strike ended on March 31 after U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor — now a Supreme Court justice — issued an injunction restoring the work rules of the expired labor contract. Two days later, owners accepted the union’s offer to return to work without an agreement. A deal wasn’t reached until 1997.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

On Thursday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that the stuffed animals pose a serious risk of injury or death, as the detached zipper can present a choking hazard.

The recall number is 034464. The recall number can be found on the product label located on the back of one of the bear’s legs.

The bear includes a stuffed heart that fits inside a pocket. The heart-shaped insert is filled with 2.5 pounds of ceramic beads and can be used as a heating pad or chilled for cooling comfort.

“The product is graded 3 years+ and carries a cautionary statement advising adult supervision due to the heated/cooled element,” the release stated.

The bear was sold between January 2026 and March 2026 for about $48.

Customers are advised to immediately stop using the Heartwarming Hugs Bear. Consumers who purchased the bear should return it to the nearest Build-A-Bear store or request a shipping label at www.buildabear.com/recalls. Once returned, Build-A-Bear will issue a refund to the original form of payment or provide a gift card.

There have been no reported injuries, although one consumer in the United Kingdom reported the zipper detaching.

For information on the recall visit Build-A-Bear online at www.buildabear.com/recalls according to the release.

Anthropic sued the Defense Department and other federal agencies this month after the Pentagon labeled it a “supply-chain risk to national security.” President Donald Trump said he would also ban the use of Anthropic’s products across other federal agencies.

“Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a ‘supply chain risk’ is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” U.S. District Judge Rita Lin of Northern California wrote in her order Thursday night. “The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.”

Lin paused her order for a week to allow the administration time to appeal.

The Defense Department and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday evening.

“We’re grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits,” an Anthropic spokesperson said in a statement Thursday. “While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI.”

The supply chain risk designation requires the Pentagon and its contractors to stop using Anthropic’s commercial AI services for all defense business.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X in late February that he was issuing a directive to give the company the “supply chain risk” label. Trump also said he was ordering all federal agencies, including the Treasury and State departments, to cease using Anthropic’s AI technology.

“The record reflects that the Challenged Actions were taken without any meaningful notice or pre-deprivation process (and, in the case of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive, without any post-deprivation process either),” Lin wrote in her order.

The order Thursday also bars other agencies from cutting off their work with Anthropic. Lin wrote that the order restores the status quo.

“This Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions,” the order said.

Anthropic filed two lawsuits against the Defense Department — one in U.S. District Court for Northern California and the other in U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. — alleging that the federal government’s moves go beyond a normal contract dispute and instead are an “unlawful campaign of retaliation” that followed months of heated negotiations about how the military should be able to use Anthropic’s AI systems.

Anthropic had sought stronger guarantees that the Pentagon would not use its AI systems for autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance.

Anthropic is the creator of the Claude chatbot system and the only AI company whose services were cleared for use on the Defense Department’s classified networks.

Hours after Hegseth’s announcement last month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said his company had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to use its services in classified settings.

Lin wrote: “Although Anthropic was on notice that the government objected to its contracting terms, it had no notice or opportunity to object before Defendants publicly barred it from all federal government work and blacklisted it with private companies working with the U.S. military. It also had no notice or opportunity to object to the factual basis for its designation as a supply chain risk, which it learned of in this litigation.”

News of a 15-point U.S. peace plan proposal sparked hopes early in the day that the Trump administration was moving to end its monthlong war against Iran. Initially, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 futures rose more than 1%.

But reports that Iran had responded negatively to the proposal briefly knocked index futures off their pre-market highs and lifted oil prices off their morning lows.

Despite the early setback, stocks closed the trading day higher. At 4 p.m. ET, the S&P 500 index was up about 0.4%, the Nasdaq Composite closed 0.7% higher, and the Dow jumped 305 points. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 1.1%.

The price of U.S. crude oil also traded off its lowest levels of the day and was down only 1.4% to about $90 per barrel by late afternoon. West Texas Intermediate crude oil has soared more than 30% since the start of the war on Feb. 28. The cost per barrel is up 50% since the beginning of the year.

International Brent crude prices traded near breakeven, at around $102 per barrel. The price of heating oil, a proxy for jet fuel, dropped 6%.

The global price of oil directly affects what Americans pay at the gas pump and what it costs them to heat and cool their homes. The average nationwide price of unleaded gas Wednesday was $3.98 per gallon, according to AAA data.

“Markets desperately want to believe in the positive,” UBS Global Wealth Management chief economist Paul Donovan wrote. “Focus on the apparent 15-point US plan to end the war has received more attention than Iranian dismissals of this, or the fact that passage through the Strait of Hormuz is minimal.”

Iran’s response to the U.S. proposal included a list of five conditions for ending the war, according to Iranian state TV, which cited a senior political-security official with knowledge of the details of the proposal.

Pakistan has also offered to mediate talks to end the hostilities, four sources told NBC News. A Persian Gulf official said Pakistan had been passing messages between the two countries for the past two days.

An in-person meeting between the U.S. and Iran could be held in the coming days, two sources added.

But President Donald Trump has continued to give conflicting signals.

On March 16, Trump said he was delaying his scheduled visit to China “by a month or so” to monitor the war. On Monday, he said the Strait of Hormuz would be “open very soon.”

And on Tuesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, “This war has been won.” At the same time, the U.S. is sending more than 1,000 additional troops to the Middle East, sources said.

Since the war started, the market has experienced several days like this, when markets are whipsawed by constant back-and-forth comments.

“There’s really no way to know at this point what the facts are regarding the state of negotiations, as neither side has any real incentive to conduct talks via the press, so expect more whipsaw action as things continue to progress,” analysts at Bespoke Investment Group wrote in a client note.

They added that the “ongoing tensions continue to support higher prices [and] stoke inflation concerns” and are likely to cause central banks to remain on hold, rather than cut rates.

On the contrary, traders believe the European Central Bank and the Bank of England will both raise interest rates.

“Uncertainty remains high,” analysts at ING wrote in a note Wednesday morning. “Overall, volatility remains elevated and a geopolitical risk premium persists.”

In the 18 trading sessions since the war began, U.S. oil prices have closed down only five times. Likewise, over the same period, the S&P 500 has closed higher only seven times. Three of those higher closes were only fractional.

After Wednesday’s close, the Nasdaq was down nearly 6% for the year, while the S&P 500 was on track for a 3.5% loss so far. The majority of those losses were concentrated in the weeks since the war began.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply typically passes, has remained at a near standstill since the war began.

On Monday, just five ships passed through the strait, according to data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence. On Tuesday, the total was six. On many days since the war started, not a single ship has passed through.

However, some of the ships passing through the strait have taken an unusual course that put them close to the Iranian coastline, potentially signaling that Tehran was keeping a tight grip on traffic flows. Two Indian ships were granted passage Tuesday after a deal with Iran, Bloomberg News reported. The Iranian navy also guided the ships.

Otherwise, hundreds of other ships loaded up with cargo, oil and liquefied natural gas remain stuck.

It would fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except for ICE, which Democrats have refused to support without new limitations on immigration enforcement operations, two sources with knowledge of the conversation told NBC News.

White House aides initially conveyed the idea to Trump and, after that briefing, Thune spoke with the president, the two sources said. Thune discussed the idea with Republicans on Capitol Hill, one of the sources said. The second source said it’s seen by numerous Republicans as a viable path to break the logjam.

ICE would be funded separately by Republicans in a party-line “reconciliation” bill that can pass without the need for any Democratic support later in the year.

The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for more than a month, and while key operations, such as TSA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are still operating, many of those employees are working without pay. As NBC News reported this weekend, more than 400 TSA officers have quit since the shutdown began. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also shut down, but its employees are being paid through Trump’s big beautiful bill passed last year.

Republicans believe that the off-ramp Trump and Thune discussed would win support from Democrats, who have offered to fund noncontroversial parts of the Department of Homeland Security on the Senate floor while the two parties continue to negotiate on immigration.

But Trump rejected it — as he made clear in a Truth Social post Sunday night.

“I don’t think we should make any deal with the Crazy, Country Destroying, Radical Left Democrats unless, and until, they Vote with Republicans to pass ‘THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,’” Trump wrote, while instead calling on Republicans to “Kill the Filibuster, and stay in D.C. for Easter, if necessary.”

Trump’s first two ideas aren’t viable. Democrats are determined to sink the SAVE America Act, which doesn’t have enough support to pass. And Republicans have made clear they lack the votes to nuke the filibuster. They may, however, cancel recess if there’s still no deal by the end of this week.

The conversation with Thune and Trump was first reported by Punchbowl News.

Speaking Monday in Memphis, Tennessee, the president doubled down on his demands to pair Homeland Security funding with the voting bill.

“You don’t have to take a fast vote. Don’t worry about Easter, going home. In fact, make this one for Jesus. OK, make this one for Jesus,” Trump said, adding: “The most important part of homeland security is voter ID and proof of citizenship. Nobody can vote on Homeland Security without voter ID or proof of citizenship.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office said that Democrats will again seek unanimous consent to fund just the TSA on the Senate floor Monday, for the eighth time.

Republicans have so far rejected those stand-alone bills.

If Trump were to change his mind and accept the Thune-GOP idea, it carries benefits for both parties. For Republicans, they could avoid giving into Democratic demands, such as requiring immigration enforcement officers to remove their masks and requiring judicial warrants to conduct raids. For Democrats, they could keep their fingerprints off ICE funding, which has become toxic with their base since Homeland Security agents killed protesters Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis.

“We can be out of this shutdown by the end of the week,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said Sunday. “Here’s what we do. The Democrats are amenable to opening up everything at DHS but ICE. We should accept that. The very next day, we should file a budget resolution through reconciliation that funds ICE as we deem appropriate. We don’t need Democratic votes to do that.”

Democrats are also planning to seize on the Trump social media post to argue that he owns the shutdown and travel chaos.

Reconciliation bills are arduous, requiring near-unanimous support among Republicans, especially given the tiny House majority. There has been deep skepticism that the party could pull it off, even if it tried. But needing to fund an agency like ICE would raise the impetus to use that path.

Under the “big, beautiful bill” passed by Republicans last year, ICE received a cash infusion of about $75 billion for the next four years to help carry out Trump’s mass deportation program.

The path comes with another possible upside for the White House: Some Trump allies have proposed reconciliation to approve supplemental funding for Trump’s war in Iran. It’s not clear that could win enough Democratic support.

The airline revised its contract of carriage on Feb. 27 to include the new provision, which sits under the ‘refusal of transport’ section that outlines the instances in which United can boot its passengers from flights.

According to the document, United reserves the right to refuse transport — on a permanent basis — to any passenger who listens to their entertainment on speaker.

It also states that any passenger who causes United ‘any loss, damage or expense of any kind,’ may be responsible for reimbursing the airline.

‘We’ve always encouraged customers to use headphones when listening to audio content — and our Wi-Fi rules already remind customers to use headphones,’ United said in a statement. ‘With the expansion of Starlink, it seemed like a good time to make that even clearer by adding it to the contract of carriage.’

Passengers who forgot their headphones at home can request a free pair on their flight, if they’re available, according to United’s in-flight entertainment information.

The move inspired a strong reaction online.

‘One would think this is common sense and airlines would have in their rules,’ said one Reddit user. ‘Now let’s have the same rule for airline lounges.’

Others complained that this has become increasingly common on flights, especially among those with small children.

‘As a flight attendant; we have to tell people literally every flight,’ another person said on Reddit. ‘It makes our jobs harder when we’re stuck policing common courtesy instead of just focusing on service & safety.’

The antitrust case, which began with jury selection Monday, is unfolding in federal court in New York. Opening statements are scheduled to start Tuesday, with the trial expected to last six weeks.

The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by the Justice Department and dozens of state attorneys general, as well as Washington, D.C., alleges that Live Nation has illegally dominated the live concert industry by monopolizing ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions.

The complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, accuses the company of engaging in ‘anticompetitive conduct’ that leads fans to pay more in fees, artists to get fewer opportunities to play concerts and venues to have limited choices for ticketing services.

Ticketmaster has for years been the target of scrutiny by music fans who reported frustrations with buying tickets through the platform.

Live Nation directly manages more than 400 musical artists and owns or controls more than 265 concert venues in North America. And through Ticketmaster, the lawsuit says, it controls around 80% of major concert venues’ ticketing — as well as a growing share of the resale market.

“Through interconnected agreements associated with Live Nation’s various roles as ticketer, promoter, artist manager, and venue owner,” the complaint says, “Live Nation has created a feedback loop that pushes ticketing and ancillary fees higher while allowing Live Nation to be on all sides of numerous transactions and thereby double-dip from the pockets of fans, artists, and venues.”

Here’s what else to know.

Attempts to advocate for ticketing reform have spanned decades. The rock band Pearl Jam tried to push the issue forward 30 years ago when its members testified before Congress, saying Ticketmaster had refused to agree to low concert ticket prices and fees. The case was dismissed a year later, and Ticketmaster’s dominance has persisted over the decades that followed.

But frustration over Ticketmaster began to boil over when it incurred the wrath of one of the country’s largest fan bases: Swifties, aka followers of Taylor Swift.

In late 2022, overloaded presale queues for the domestic leg of Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour caused the site to crash and led Ticketmaster to cancel the sale. The fiasco even drew the attention of Swift herself, who called it “excruciating” to watch.

Soon afterward, in January 2023, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing examining Ticketmaster’s dominance in the industry. During the bipartisan hearing, which probed whether Ticketmaster’s outsize control has unfairly hurt customers, even senators couldn’t refrain from making references to Swift.

The Swifties also brought their own lawsuits against Ticketmaster in December 2022. One class-action suit was dropped by the end of 2023, while another suit, filed together by 355 individual ticket buyers, still awaits trial.

Live Nation Entertainment has denied that it’s a monopoly.

The company has told NBC News that the Justice Department’s lawsuit “won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows.”

“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment, such as the fact that the bulk of service fees go to venues, and that competition has steadily eroded Ticketmaster’s market share and profit margin,” the company said.

Last week, Live Nation asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to pause the case so it could appeal his decision denying the case’s dismissal.

Subramanian, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, declined to delay the trial and ruled to allow the Justice Department’s claims to proceed.

Potential witnesses for the trial include: musician Kid Rock (whose real name is Robert Ritchie), Minnesota Timberwolves CEO Matthew Caldwell, Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez, Live Nation Entertainment CEO Michael Rapino and Mumford & Sons keyboardist Ben Lovett.

Kid Rock is expected to testify about ‘competitive conditions for concert promotions and primary ticketing, including the impact of Defendants’ actions on artists and fans,’ according to the potential witness list provided by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. In January, he told the Senate Commerce Committee at a hearing that the ticketing industry is ‘full of greedy snakes and scoundrels.’ (It appears Kid Rock is still partnering with Live Nation for his “Freedom 250” tour, with tickets currently being sold exclusively through the platform.)

Lovett’s testimony, meanwhile, would be likely to address ‘artist preferences and competitive dynamics associated with the promotions and amphitheaters markets,’ according to the plaintiffs’ potential witness list document. He’s also listed on the defendants’ potential witness list document.

Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and former Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff are also expected to take the stand. They were instrumental figures in the 2010 merger.

Azoff, who represents major artists such as Harry Styles, is ‘likely to testify about industry trends, dynamics, and competition, the selection of live event promotion companies, and tour and show routing and venue selection, as well as ticketing provider preferences,’ according to the potential witness list provided by the defendants’ attorneys.

Rapino’s expected testimony would focus on ‘the company’s business, its corporate structure, strategy, and finances, including the different lines of business and how they interact, as well as industry trends, dynamics, and competition.’ The defendants’ attorneys also said he would be likely to ‘rebut the plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct and anticompetitive effects.’

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission separately sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster over allegations of illegal and deceptive business practices that it says caused consumers to pay ‘significantly more’ than the face value of a ticket.

Seven states — Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia — joined the FTC’s suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.