[adrianmonk]

They settled out of court, and there's nothing that says the terms can't be ironic. It's just whatever both parties agree to.

Let's assume Songkick sued because their company is essentially doomed due to Ticketmaster's bad behavior. Then Songkick needs an outcome that addresses that. One outcome is that Ticketmaster's behavior could change. Another outcome is Ticketmaster can pay Songkick for whatever the business might have been worth if it had succeeded.

It's analogous to buying a product that has a repair, replace, or refund guarantee. Ticketmaster changing their behavior is like repair: you get to enjoy the thing you were expecting to have. Shutting down the company and selling part of it to Ticketmaster is like refund: you don't get to enjoy the thing, and you get money instead.

This outcome doesn't improve things for consumers. But it's Songkick bringing the suit, and Songkick is a business whose primary goal is to look out for themselves. If some consumer group had brought the suit, their goal would be consumer protection.