Please offer a well reasoned and articulate discussion on a case relevant to the chapter under study which includes the rationale for the decision in same along with the ramifications thereof for business and society.

Case $38\mathrm{.}3$: Batson v$.$ Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

James Batson walked up to the box office of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., at the Charter One Pavilion in Chicago, Illinois, and bought a non$-$refundable concert ticket. The price included a $$9$ parking fee. Batson did not have a car to park. He filed a suit in a federal district court against Live Nation. He argued that the bundled fee was unfair because consumers were forced to pay it or forego the concert. He asserted that this was an illegal tying arrangement. The court dismissed the suit. Batson appealed.

The U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. $$While we understand why a consumer who does not want parking would prefer to purchase a concert ticket unbundled from that benefit, there is no rule that requires everything to be sold on a fully unbundled basis.$$ The court could not identify a product market in which Live Nation had sufficient power to force consumers who wanted to attend a concert $($the tying product$)$ to buy $$useless parking rights$($the tied product$).$ Nor was there evidence that Live Nation's parking tie$-$in restrained competition for parking in Chicago.