The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking to break up Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, alleging it has hurt consumers and violated antitrust laws by exercising outsize control over the live events industry.

The suit, filed in the Southern District of New York and backed by attorneys general for 29 states plus Washington, D.C., alleges that Live Nation has engaged in practices that harm the entire live entertainment industry — from artists and fans to venues and startups seeking to break into the business.

It says Live Nation directly manages more than 400 musical artists, controls 60% of concert promotions at major venues and, through Ticketmaster, controls roughly 80% or more of major concert venues’ ticketing — plus a growing share of the resale market.

“Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a news release. “The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation.”

Among the accusations against Live Nation:

In a statement, Live Nation said that the Justice Department’s allegations were ‘baseless’ and that its actions would prove counterproductive.

‘The DOJ’s lawsuit won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows,’ it said. ‘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 also disputed that it plays a dominant role, saying Ticketmaster’s market share has been declining for more than a decade.

And it said the suit ignores key factors that have made the live entertainment and ticket-buying experience for fans worse, like increasing production costs, surging artist popularity and 24/7 online ticket scalping. 

‘Live Nation can offer and has offered fans, artists, venues and the rest of the performance ecosystem better prices and better services than they would receive if these complementary businesses were separated,’ it said. ‘Ticketmaster in particular is a far better, more artist- and fan-focused business under Live Nation’s ownership than it ever was as a standalone company. But that’s not how this DOJ sees it.’

Ticketmaster has faced gripes from fans and artist for years. The ire reached a fever pitch in 2022 following a botched ticket rollout for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. The Senate Judiciary Committee subsequently held a hearing on the company’s role in the ticketing industry.

Thursday’s lawsuit joins a handful of other major antitrust efforts initiated under President Joe Biden, who has made rooting out alleged monopolies a cornerstone of his presidency. In July 2021, he signed an executive order to promote competition. Among the biggest such actions the Biden administration has taken, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in March accusing Apple of exercising monopoly power over the smartphone market, which it has denied.

Biden has said that while he is “proud capitalist,” “capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism; it’s exploitation.”

Several bills have been introduced over the past year to address issues affecting ticket buyers. The House last week passed the Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act, which would require sellers to disclose all costs and fees upfront when they list tickets for sale.

Live Nation supported the move and said it backs ticketing reforms such as anti-bot legislation and banning speculative tickets, or the sale of tickets that are not currently in the seller’s possession.

“Bipartisan support for these reforms show that protecting fans and artists is in everyone’s interest,” the company said in a statement. “We look forward to working with policymakers to make these changes law.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., who introduced the BOSS and SWIFT acts last year to combat deceptive ticketing practices, called the suit ‘one of the most fan-friendly moves by our federal government in many years.’ He added that Live Nation and Ticketmaster should not have been allowed to merge.

“This news is a victory for the millions of American fans who have been taken advantage of, screwed, ripped off, and outright robbed by this corrupt and greedy entity,” Pascrell said in a statement.

Recently, over 250 artists signed a letter in support of the Fans First Act, which was introduced in the Senate in December. The bill seeks to improve price transparency and consumer protections, as well as prevent bad actors from charging exorbitant prices. It would also bolster the Better Online Ticket Sales Act, passed in 2016 to prohibit scalpers from using software to buy tickets in bulk, by further prohibiting the use of bots in ticket sales.

Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, wrote on the Live Nation website in March that Ticketmaster is misperceived as an “enormous ticket retailer that acquires vast quantities of tickets and puts them up for sale at prices Ticketmaster determines. In reality, he said, ticket prices are set by artists and sports teams.

Consumer advocacy groups cheered reports this year that the Justice Department was planning to sue Live Nation.

A case against the company would show “the severity of this situation and the need for action to protect fans,” the president of the Fan Fairness Coalition, Mark Meador, a Republican antitrust expert, said in a statement in April.

“This will be a critical step in holding Ticketmaster and Live Nation accountable for monopolistic, anticompetitive business practices that have eroded free market competition in the live event ticketing industry and hurt millions of fans,” he said.

In a statement, a group representing independent venues hailed the Justice Department’s actions.

‘We hope that the suit filed today will ultimately produce a meaningful result that will benefit fans, artists, independent venues and festivals, along with the businesses that surround us across the country,’ said Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association.

Ticketmaster has argued that artists and their teams set the terms for how tickets are rolled out. In a webpage titled Ticketing Truths, it says acts are responsible for setting face-value ticket prices. And in collaboration with managers, agents and promoters, artists also decide which venues to play, when to put tickets on sale and how to sell them, it says.

As for service fees — a frequent target of criticism among fans — the company says they are set by venues, which also keep most of the fee proceeds. “Some portion” of fee revenue goes to the ticketing company and to pay credit card fees.

Stocks fell Thursday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average registering its worst day of 2024, as a post-earnings rally in Nvidia failed to lift the broader market.

The 30-stock Dow slid 605.78 points, or 1.53% for its worst session of the year. Boeing was the biggest laggard in the Dow, falling 7.5%. The S&P 500 dropped 0.74%, and the Nasdaq Composite tumbled 0.39% after both indexes reached record highs earlier in the day.

Chipmaker and artificial intelligence darling Nvidia surged 9.3%, sending shares above $1,000, after posting stronger-than-expected fiscal first-quarter results and announcing a 10-for-1 stock split.

Fiscal second-quarter revenue guidance of about $28 billion also beat an LSEG consensus forecast of $26.61 billion — a sign the company doesn’t see its momentum slowing. For the bottom line, analysts expect a profit of $5.95 per share.

Nvidia’s results have been a focal point for Wall Street, as traders hoped for signs that the excitement around AI is not waning. With its market cap of more than $2.5 trillion, Nvidia also has considerable sway over the broad S&P 500.

However, the majority of the stocks in the broad market index turned negative Thursday, indicating a lack of market breadth. More than 400 names in the S&P 500 were lower, and information technology was the only positive sector for the day.

Stronger than expected economic data also evaporated the rally on Thursday as investors cut their odds of a rate cut in September. Services and manufacturing data for May both topped economists’ expectations, according to purchase manager surveys from S&P Global released Thursday. Labor market data also beat estimates, adding to investors’ concerns the Federal Reserve will not lower interest rates soon.

Traders are currently pricing just a 51% chance the Fed will cut rates in its September meeting, down from 58% a day ago and nearly 68% in the prior week, according to the CME FedWatch Tool. When the level falls, below 60% it’s viewed as no longer likely that the Fed will take action.

The market has “some loose footing,” Piper Sandler chief market technician Craig Johnson wrote in a Thursday note. “This market’s strange mix of leadership, combined with breakdowns in transportation stocks and mediocre breadth readings, makes us not so confident that a new leg higher will be sustained from current levels.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high net worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

Housekeepers in Palm Beach and South Florida are cleaning up, with salaries often topping $150,000 and bidding wars between mansion owners becoming common, according to staffing companies.

The mass wealth migration to Florida from New York and other high-tax states has created record demand for household staff in elite Florida enclaves — especially Palm Beach. Demand for butlers (now called “hospitality managers” or “estate managers”) as well as nannies, chefs, drivers and personal security has surged, according to staffing agencies.

It’s the shortage of housekeepers, however, that has created the biggest mess for wealthy homeowners. Many of the wealthy emigres to Florida bought big homes and now need people to clean them. Hotels, resorts and businesses are also vying for cleaning staff. The result: Typical pay for housekeepers has rocketed from about $25 an hour in 2020 to $45 or $50 an hour today, according to some agencies.

“I have been placing staff for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this,” said April Berube, founder of The Wellington Agency, which places household staff in Palm Beach, Miami, New York and other locations. “We’ve seen such a boom from people relocating, especially Palm Beach and Miami.”

In Palm Beach, housekeepers with experience in wealthy homes are typically making between $120,000 and $150,000 a year, along with 401(k) plans, health care and benefits, including overtime.

“For housekeepers it’s wonderful,” Berube said. “For us it’s extremely difficult. It’s a severe shortage.”

Melissa Psitos, founder of Lily Pond Services, said she recently had a Florida client hoping to hire a housekeeper for $75,000 a year. They ended up paying $110,000, which was reasonable for the market. Executive housekeepers, who often help direct a staff of other housekeepers and laundresses, can make even more. Psitos said she knows one head housekeeper in Palm Beach who makes $250,000 a year, including overtime, and travels with the family to their various homes.

“There is just not enough supply,” she said.

Bidding wars between wealthy homeowners have become common. Staffing agencies are posting “Help Wanted” ads all over the web and throughout West Palm Beach. Clients are growing frustrated.

“At first they’re in shock, and they say, ‘No way I’m paying that,’” Berube said. “It’s even uncomfortable for me to give them the numbers. But when they try to hire someone for less, with less experience, they almost always come back to us and say, ‘I learned my lesson. We are willing to pay for the experience.’”

Berube said the housekeepers for the wealthy need highly specific skills — from how to move quietly and unnoticed throughout the house, to how to carefully clean antiques, flatware and fine art and how to properly wash and press fine linens.

“There are specific tools and skills you need to work in fine homes,” she said.

Berube said with so few qualified candidates, she’s thinking of launching a school to teach high-end housekeeping skills and generate more housekeepers.

“I would love to do it, but I don’t have the time, since we’re busy trying to find staff.”

Sign up to receive future editions of CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank.

The 1986 Air Carrier Access Act requires airlines to provide a wheelchair to passengers with disabilities at the airport. The problem: Many travelers are faking it, Frontier Airlines CEO Barry Biffle says.

“There is massive, rampant abuse of special services. There are people using wheelchair assistance who don’t need it at all,” Biffle said at a Wings Club luncheon on Thursday in New York.

He said he had seen Frontier flights where 20 people were brought to the plane with wheelchairs, but only three wheelchairs were used upon arrival.

“We are healing so many people,” he joked.

Biffle wasn’t talking about travelers’ personal wheelchairs but rather the service airlines provide when travelers arrive at the airport.

It costs the airline between $30 and $35 each time a customer requests a wheelchair, Biffle said, and abuse of the service leads to delays for travelers with genuine need for assistance.

“Everyone should be entitled to it who needs it, but you park in a handicapped space they will tow your car and fine you,” he told CNBC. “There should be the same penalty for abusing these services.”

Earlier this year, the Transportation Department proposed stricter rules aimed at preventing wheelchair damage by airport ground handlers and ensuring “prompt assistance” to travelers with disabilities when getting on and off the plane.

More than half of Americans think that the United States is in an economic recession, although gross domestic product has been increasing for the past several years.

According to a new Guardian/Harris poll, 56% of respondents said they believe the U.S. is in a recession and 58% say that President Joe Biden is responsible for what they see as an economic downturn.

A recession is an extended period of economic decline, usually designated when GDP has declined for two or more consecutive fiscal quarters.

Under those terms, the U.S. is definitively not in a recession.

GDP grew by 1.6% in the first quarter of 2024. Granted, that is a decelerated rate from the 3.3% growth of the fourth quarter of 2023, but it is not recessionary. U.S. GDP growth has been outpacing that of other developed nations.

“America has the best economy in the world,” Biden told NBC’s “TODAY” in April.

The Guardian/Harris poll is yet another example of an ongoing gap between economic data and economic feelings that has nagged the Biden administration in recent months.

Despite some positive signals that the economy is recovering from the pandemic chaos that disrupted supply chains and sent inflation skyrocketing, consumer attitudes have lagged, often driven by the high costs of daily living caused by stubbornly high inflation.

The Guardian/Harris poll comes less than six months away from the November election where Biden will face former President Donald Trump. The Biden campaign is fighting to sell voters on the president’s economic record and shift the mood to recognize the economic gains the country has made since the pandemic.

“We know our work is not done,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a January briefing, nodding to the chasm between how the American economy is doing by the top-line numbers and how Americans are feeling about it.

Target’s weak quarterly earnings underscored why it cut prices on thousands of household staples: it’s struggling to win over bargain hunters.

The discounter is not alone.

Target’s first-quarter results on Wednesday not only show American consumers are more selective about spending after sustained inflation squeezed their budgets for nearly three years. The company’s declining sales also illustrate how the battle for shoppers’ wallets has heated up as retailers — and even some restaurants — race to outmatch each other on low prices.

Walmart said last week that its grocery “rollbacks,” short-term deals on specific items, were up 45% year over year in April. The discounter also introduced a new premium grocery brand with most items under $5. Earlier this month, Aldi dropped prices on more than 250 items, including chicken, steak, granola bars, and frozen blueberries. And even McDonald’s is debuting a limited-time $5 value meal in late June as some diners scoff at the price of fast food.

Target made its move on Monday, saying it has already reduced prices on about 1,500 items and plans to cut prices on thousands more this summer. Many of those cheaper items are staples, such as milk, peanut butter and diapers.

Multiple major grocers and restaurants cutting prices or offering deals could offer relief to consumers, at a time when consumer prices are still climbing more than 3% from last year. It could also give the Federal Reserve more confidence to cut interest rates. Even so, the revenue lost from lower prices could force businesses to cut back elsewhere — potentially on labor costs.

Analysts on Target’s earnings call on Wednesday asked about the timing and reasoning behind the price cuts and whether Target or its vendors are picking up the tab. The company declined to share details of that split, but Chief Growth Officer Christina Hennington said Target’s vendors know the company is committed to passing on savings to its customers to drive traffic.

Some businesses have held on to customers even with the same or higher prices: Chipotle and Sweetgreen, for example, have bucked the consumer slowdown.

Target’s results on Wednesday revealed at least part of the reason why it is joining the race to cut prices. Sales of discretionary merchandise, such as clothing, dropped year over year. But so did sales of higher frequency items like groceries and paper towels.

Some customers may be making those purchases at Walmart instead. Transactions on Walmart’s website and stores rose 3.8% in the most recent quarter, and its e-commerce purchases shot up by 22% in the U.S., the company reported last week.

In an interview with CNBC, Walmart CFO John David Rainey said the company is gaining share from higher-income households. He added some consumers are coming to its stores for meals because of sticker shock at fast food chains.

“We’ve got customers that are coming to us more frequently than they have before and newer customers that we haven’t traditionally had,” he said.

On Target’s earnings call, analysts asked tough questions about whether the retailer is losing ground with shoppers or is seen as too pricey, outside of sales events.

CEO Brian Cornell said Target is putting value front and center as it fights to get back to growth.

“We want to make sure America knows that Target’s a great place to shop and we have great value every time you engage whether it’s in-store or through our digital channels,” he said, adding that the company is on track to reverse sales declines in the second quarter.

When Target cuts prices, customers have noticed and responded, Hennington said on the earning call. For example, it noticed it didn’t have low-priced tech accessories that customers wanted, such as charging cables and phone cases, she said.

Those items became part of Dealworthy, a new private brand launched in February that offers Target’s lowest prices on basic items like laundry detergent and paper plates.

“When we introduced the right price points in Dealworthy, the guests noticed immediately and that drove unit and traffic acceleration in those categories and that’s what we’re doing business by business,” she said.

It’ll soon run a similar play with seasonal items, she said.

After Target “took a hard look at some of the most popular products from last year’s summer assortment,” customers can expect to see cheaper pool noodles, floats and coolers.

— CNBC’s Amelia Lucas contributed to this report.

A dispute between a fintech startup and its banking partners has ensnared potentially millions of Americans, leaving them without access to their money for nearly two weeks, according to recent court documents.

Since last year, Synapse — an Andreessen Horowitz-backed startup that serves as a middle-man between customer-facing fintech brands and FDIC-backed banks — has had disagreements with several of its partners about how much in customer balances it owed.

The situation deteriorated in April after Synapse declared bankruptcy following the exodus of several key partners. On May 11, Synapse cut off access to a technology system that enabled lenders, including Evolve Bank & Trust, to process transactions and account information, according to the filings.

That has left users of several fintech services stranded with no access to their funds, according to testimonials filed this week in a California bankruptcy court.

One customer, a Maryland teacher named Chris Buckler, said in a May 21 filing that his funds at crypto app Juno were locked because of the Synapse bankruptcy.

“I am increasingly desperate and don’t know where to turn,” Bucker wrote. “I have nearly $38,000 tied up as a result of the halting of transaction processing. This money took years to save up.”

Until recently, Synapse, which calls itself the biggest “banking as a service” provider, helped a wide swath of the U.S. fintech universe provide services like checking accounts and debit cards. Former partners included Mercury, Dave and Juno, well-known fintech firms that catered to segments including startups, gig workers and crypto users.

Synapse had contracts with 20 banks and 100 fintechs, resulting in about 10 million end users, according to an April filing from founder and CEO Sankaet Pathak.

Pathak didn’t immediately return an email seeking comment. A spokesman for Evolve declined to comment, instead pointing to a statement on the bank’s website that read, in part:

“Synapse’s abrupt shutdown of essential systems without notice and failure to provide necessary records needlessly jeopardized end users by hindering our ability to verify transactions, confirm end user balances, and comply with applicable law,” the bank said.

It is unclear why Synapse switched the system off, and an explanation couldn’t be found in filings.

Another customer, Joseph Dominguez of Sacramento, California, told the bankruptcy court on May 20 that he had more than $20,000 held up in his Yotta fintech account.

“We are scared that money will be lost if Synapse can not provide ledgers and documents to Evolve or Yotta to prove we are the legitimate owners,” Dominguez wrote. “We don’t know where our direct deposit has gone, we don’t know where our pending withdrawals are currently held.”

The freeze-up of customer funds exposes the vulnerabilities in the banking as a service, or BAAS, partnership model and a possible blind spot for regulatory oversight.

The BAAS model, used most notably by the pre-IPO fintech firm Chime, allows Silicon Valley-style startups to tap the abilities of small FDIC-backed banks. Together, the ecosystem helped these companies compete against the giants of American banking.

Customers mistakenly believed that because funds are ultimately held at real banks, they were as safe and available as any other FDIC-insured accounts, said Jason Mikula, a consultant and newsletter writer who has tracked this case closely.

“This is 10 million-plus people who can’t pay their mortgages, can’t buy their groceries … This is another order of disaster,” Mikula said.

Regulators have yet to take a role in the dispute, partly because the underlying banks involved haven’t failed, the point at which the FDIC would usually intervene to make customers whole, Mikula added.

The FDIC and Federal Reserve didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment.

In pleading with the judge in this case, Martin Barash, to help the impacted customers, Buckler noted in his testimonial that while he had other resources besides the locked account, others are not as lucky.

“So far the federal government is not willing to help us,” Buckler wrote. “As you heard, there are millions affected who are in far worse straits.”

Reached by phone on Wednesday, Buckler said he had one message for Americans:

“I want to make people aware: Yeah, your money might be safe at the bank, but it is not safe if the fintech or the processor fails,” he said. “If this is another FTX, if they were doing funny business with my money, then what?”

Warner Bros. Discovery is considering matching an offer for the media rights to a package of National Basketball Association games as the league looks to finalize terms — but its focus could be on a potential Amazon package rather than games slated for Comcast’s NBCUniversal, according to people familiar with the matter.

It’s the latest turn in what’s been a relatively messy renegotiation for Warner Bros. Discovery, one of two incumbent holders of NBA rights, along with Disney. Warner’s Turner Sports has carried NBA games for nearly 40 years.

Warner Bros. Discovery continues to consider ways to partner with the NBA to broadcast a package of games as the league plans its next media partners, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private.

The league is close to signing agreements with Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon for three different packages of games, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. If that happens without a side agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery, its CEO, David Zaslav, will have a chance to leverage matching rights that were secured — and paid for — as part of its previous deal with the league.

David Zaslav at the premiere of Warner Bros. ‘The Flash’ on June 12, 2023 in Hollywood, CA.Axelle/Bauer-Griffin / Getty Images file

Under the terms of that agreement, which runs out after the 2024-25 season, Warner Bros. Discovery can match a competing bid for the games it currently licenses from the NBA. Warner Bros. Discovery hasn’t yet seen the three potential packages because the league hasn’t officially signed agreements with any of its potential media partners. It also hasn’t communicated any plans on matching or not matching with the league, said the people.

Still, the company has been working with its lawyers to determine how matching would work if the league carves up Warner Bros. Discovery’s current package into deals for both NBCUniversal and Amazon.

Amazon has reportedly offered $1.8 billion a year for a slate of games, while NBCUniversal has offered about $2.5 billion per year, according to people familiar with the matter. The league has set up frameworks for both deals but hasn’t yet signed paperwork formalizing the bids. When it does, Warner Bros. Discovery will have five days to match, according to a person familiar with the language of the contracts.

It’s possible Warner Bros. Discovery chooses not to match any of the packages, or it may push to strike a side deal with the league for either a settlement or a smaller, fourth package of games. It’s unclear whether the NBA would be amenable to either of those solutions.

Spokespeople for the NBA, Warner Bros. Discovery and NBCUniversal declined to comment. Representatives from Amazon didn’t immediately return request for comment.

If the current slate of NBA games aired on TNT is split into two or more packages, Warner Bros. Discovery believes it has the right to match any of those offerings, or at least the parts of them that include the current TNT games, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.

“We’ve had a lot of time to prepare for this negotiation, and we have strategies in place for the various potential outcomes,” Zaslav said earlier this month during Warner Bros. Discovery’s quarterly earnings conference call. “We have matching rights that allow us to match third-party offers before the NBA enters into an agreement with them.”

That could gum up an NBA deal with either NBCUniversal or Amazon or potentially lead to a lawsuit between Warner Bros. Discovery and the league. It’s unclear if the league can reject Warner Bros. Discovery’s matching rights if it chooses a different partner.

Warner Bros. Discovery is interested in a more affordable package of games given its gross debt of about $42 billion — more than doubles its current market capitalization of about $20 billion — making the package that’s likely earmarked for Amazon appealing. That package tentatively includes All-Star games and conference finals games, which have aired on TNT, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The NBA wants a robust streaming offering as a third package to extend the reach of its product beyond cable TV. Warner Bros. Discovery owns both cable network TNT and its flagship streaming service, Max, which is expanding internationally. The company announced on Wednesday it had struck a deal with ESPN to sublicense College Football Playoff games for five years — with the games to be aired on TNT and streamed on Max.

Still, unlike Amazon’s Prime Video streaming service, Max plans to tier its sports offerings to customers, forcing them to pay more and potentially diminishing reach, which the NBA may not prefer.

It’s possible Zaslav’s focus on Amazon may be a strategic move to get a settlement from the league by focusing on a package specifically designed for a big tech streamer.

The College Football Playoffs deal and the company’s recent rights agreement for a package of NASCAR races beginning in 2025 has put Zaslav in a place where he’s content to lose the NBA if Warner Bros. Discovery management decides the cost is too much, according to people familiar with the matter.

Zaslav has told colleagues he believes NBCUniversal is overspending for the NBA, based on his company’s research into ratings and potential subscriber value for a subscription streaming service, according to a person familiar with the matter.

An offer of $2.5 billion or more would more than double the NBA’s previous asking price of $1.2 billion, and the new package would contain fewer games because of the introduction of a third media partner.

Warner Bros. Discovery could use the money saved from not spending on the NBA for other sports, including UFC, which will likely sign a new rights deal next year.

Zaslav views NBCUniversal as a direct competitor in a fight for survival among legacy media companies, according to people familiar with his thinking. If NBCUniversal ends up paying too much for the NBA, he views that as a competitive advantage for Warner Bros. Discovery, they said.

If Warner Bros. Discovery chooses to match a potential Amazon package or stand down completely, it would clear the way for the NBA to get back in business with NBCUniversal, which lost league rights in 2002.

A member of NBCUniversal’s music licensing team recently reached out to John Tesh, the owner of “Roundball Rock,” the old “NBA on NBC” theme song, to express interest in bringing the jingle back to NBC if the company gets the media rights, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Like Disney, which owns ABC, NBCUniversal has a broadcast network in NBC that is free over-the-air and can expand ratings for games. Neither Amazon nor Warner Bros. Discovery owns a broadcast network.

NBCUniversal also owns Peacock, its domestic-only streaming service, which could also become a platform for NBA games.

Disclosure: NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC.