A federal appeals court docket on July 13, 2026 upheld an order blocking Nielsen from imposing a radio rankings coverage that tied its nationwide knowledge product to native knowledge purchases, discovering the measurement agency exploited a monopoly to coerce Cumulus Media into shopping for merchandise it didn’t need.
The USA Courtroom of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction issued by District Decide Jeannette A. Vargas, leaving in place a block on what Cumulus calls Nielsen’s Community Coverage. The three-judge panel determined the case on July 13, 2026, following oral argument on Might 7. Radio World reported the end result on July 14.
The ruling issues effectively past the radio enterprise. For the primary time on the appellate stage on this circuit, the court docket held {that a} provider can violate antitrust legislation not solely by way of an express tie however by way of pricing designed to attain the identical impact – a authorized idea the panel referred to as constructive tying. That holding offers patrons throughout promoting and measurement markets a brand new argument in opposition to dominant distributors that discard formal bundling guidelines whereas preserving the economics of a bundle.
What the court docket determined
The panel, composed of Circuit Judges Myrna Pérez and Alison Nathan and Decide Gary Katzmann of the Courtroom of Worldwide Commerce sitting by designation, affirmed the district court docket’s order in full. Decide Nathan wrote the opinion. The court docket held that Decide Vargas didn’t abuse her discretion when she concluded that Nielsen’s coverage was an illegal tie, that the conduct precipitated anticompetitive results in native knowledge markets, and that Cumulus would undergo irreparable hurt with out aid.
The dispute issues two merchandise. Nielsen sells native radio viewers knowledge, which measures listenership in particular geographic areas, and nationwide radio knowledge, which compiles all native knowledge right into a single nationwide report. In response to court docket paperwork, Nielsen is the one provider of nationwide radio knowledge in america, holding a 100% share of that market. In native knowledge, it competes with one rival, Eastlan Scores, which surveys smaller markets and areas Nielsen doesn’t cowl.
Each knowledge sorts are important for giant broadcasters. Nationwide networks use nationwide figures to promote promoting throughout their attain, whereas native stations use area-specific knowledge to cost and promote stock to advertisers focusing on specific geographies. Cumulus operates 395 radio stations and distributes content material to greater than 9,500 affiliated stations by way of its Westwood One syndication community, based on the appellate opinion.
The coverage on the heart of the case
Nielsen traditionally offered its Nationwide report and particular person native knowledge as separate merchandise. That modified in 2024. Underneath the brand new Community Coverage, a broadcast community that operates an area station in a Nielsen-measured market and doesn’t subscribe to Nielsen’s native knowledge in that market can not buy the Nationwide product with knowledge for that particular market included.
The mechanics produce a degraded product. If a nationwide community operates native stations in 30 markets and buys solely the Nationwide report, Nielsen omits knowledge for these 30 markets from the report. In Nielsen’s personal phrases, quoted within the opinion, the exempted product is “like Swiss cheese.” For Cumulus, that stripped-down report would have excluded knowledge from main markets together with San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York Metropolis, rendering it, within the court docket’s evaluation, not useable.
The Community Coverage applies solely to clients working each a nationwide community and native stations. In response to court docket paperwork, that group contains 12 clients, together with the three largest corporations in radio, which collectively management roughly a 3rd of all radio promoting spend.
Nielsen mentioned it adopted the coverage to cease nationwide clients from sharing Nationwide knowledge with native associates at no cost, from making selections for associates primarily based on the nationwide report, or from extracting native knowledge from Nationwide with out paying. An government described the coverage’s goals as bringing teams with non-subscribing markets again to the negotiation desk, commanding subscriptions in native markets, and stopping networks from getting knowledge by way of the again door, based on sealed appendix supplies cited within the opinion.
How negotiations collapsed
The events’ prior contract, signed earlier than the Community Coverage existed, was set to run out on the finish of 2025. Underneath that settlement, Cumulus had bought each Nationwide and native knowledge in 76 markets. Earlier than negotiations for a brand new contract started in Might 2025, Cumulus determined it now not needed to subscribe to a few of these markets, concluding that the price of Nielsen’s native knowledge had outstripped its worth. It deliberate to change to Eastlan, a lower-cost different, in at the least a few of these areas.
Nielsen’s June 2025 provide bundled the total Nationwide product with native service in each market the place Cumulus operates stations. A follow-up provide did the identical. When Cumulus requested for a standalone worth for Nationwide plus market-by-market native pricing, Nielsen refused, citing the Community Coverage. A Nielsen government said {that a} standalone worth for Nationwide was not potential below the corporate’s native subscription coverage, based on the opinion.
The talks reached an deadlock in August 2025. Cumulus despatched a cease-and-desist letter alleging an antitrust violation and threatening go well with. A few month later, Nielsen exempted Cumulus from the coverage and, for the primary time, supplied a standalone worth for Nationwide. That worth is the place the case turns.
A worth 10 instances larger
In response to the appellate opinion, the standalone provide was at the least 150% greater than every other nationwide community paid for Nationwide and ten instances greater than what Cumulus was paying below its present contract. The district court docket discovered the value so exorbitant as to make it economically unfeasible to buy Nationwide as a separate product. That top worth, the decrease court docket concluded, served as a constructive tie.
The mathematics specified by the opinion illustrates the issue. The court docket discovered that if Cumulus purchased Nielsen’s standalone Nationwide after which bought its most popular native knowledge from Eastlan, the mixed value would run $1.2 million greater than Nielsen’s authentic bundled June provide. Particular greenback figures have been redacted from the general public opinion. Cumulus thus confronted what the panel referred to as an illusory alternative: settle for Nielsen’s tied provide, or pay $1.2 million extra to purchase native knowledge from a competitor.
A last bundled provide got here on October 16, 2025, once more together with all 80 markets the place Cumulus operates, together with the native markets Cumulus didn’t need. That very same day, Cumulus filed go well with within the Southern District of New York, accusing Nielsen of violating Part 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by way of an illegal tying association it described as a textbook abuse of monopoly energy.
The authorized query: can worth alone create a tie
Nielsen’s principal argument on attraction was that constructive tying will not be a viable idea below the Sherman Act. It contended that solely an specific tie, a vendor’s express refusal to promote one product with out one other, might be actionable. The panel disagreed.
The court docket traced the idea to 2 precedents. In United States v. Loew’s, a 1962 Supreme Courtroom determination, movie distributors that had deserted formal block-booking insurance policies have been nonetheless barred from charging worth differentials that had the impact of conditioning the sale of 1 movie on the acquisition of others. In American Producers Mutual Insurance coverage Firm v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, a 1967 Second Circuit case involving promoting time on ABC stations, the court docket held {that a} vendor can not cost considerably extra for a person product if the value distinction has the impact of conditioning its sale on the acquisition of a bundle and can’t be justified by value.
Studying these instances collectively, the panel concluded that tying can happen when a vendor de facto ties two merchandise by way of exorbitant costs, leaving a purchaser with just one economically rational alternative. The court docket described that final result immediately: the important attribute of an invalid tie is the vendor’s exploitation of management over one product to power the customer into an undesirable buy, and that compulsion can come up from a steep, non-cost-justified worth differential simply as it might from an express refusal to promote.
Making use of the framework, the panel held that Nielsen’s standalone provide, its fourth of eight throughout negotiations, was not a mere opening bid however a continuation of the identical coercion. Nielsen argued that a gap provide can by no means set up legal responsibility. The court docket distinguished its personal precedent, noting that within the earlier ABC case the plaintiff had not pressed its place lengthy sufficient to really feel financial strain. Right here, in contrast, Cumulus made its need for a subset of native markets clear from the outset, and Nielsen steadfastly refused to accommodate it.
Anticompetitive results and the rival ignored
The panel additionally upheld the discovering that Nielsen’s conduct harmed competitors in native knowledge markets. The district court docket discovered that the Community Coverage poses a big barrier to entry, stopping Eastlan from attaining scale or industry-wide acceptance. As a result of the coverage applies to the biggest nationwide broadcasters, Eastlan is lower off from the shoppers almost certainly to purchase its merchandise.
For instance the impact, the decrease court docket pointed to the New Orleans market, the place a smaller broadcaster not topic to the coverage earned much less in annual income in 2024 than the price of Eastlan’s native knowledge. The appellate panel rejected Nielsen’s declare that the district court docket relied on just one market, noting that the trial court docket had cited proof about many markets earlier than utilizing New Orleans for instance.
On Nielsen’s asserted enterprise justification, that it wanted to recoup the prices of manufacturing Nationwide, the panel discovered no clear error within the district court docket’s conclusion that Nielsen made no effort to quantify these prices or correlate them with its standalone worth. The court docket additionally credited inside statements, together with an electronic mail from Wealthy Tunkel, Managing Director of Nielsen Audio, describing the coverage’s aim as commanding subscriptions and bringing non-subscribing teams again to the desk. These statements supported the discovering that Nielsen’s said justifications have been pretextual.
What the panel didn’t settle for
The affirmance was not whole in its reasoning. Whereas the court docket upheld the discovering of irreparable hurt within the type of misplaced clients, goodwill, and market share, it concluded that the district court docket erred in figuring out two extra types of hurt. The panel disagreed that threatened financial hurt to shoppers is robotically adequate to authorize aid between non-public events, an ordinary it mentioned applies to enforcement actions by state officers relatively than non-public disputes. It additionally rejected the view {that a} discount in competitors because of antitrust damage independently constitutes irreparable hurt for a personal litigant, who should present threatened loss to its personal pursuits.
These corrections didn’t change the outcome. The court docket held that the surviving foundation, misplaced clients, diminished goodwill, and lowered market share, was sufficient to maintain the injunction.
The chapter wrinkle
A procedural query ran alongside the deserves. Cumulus filed for voluntary Chapter 11 chapter on March 10, 2026, and Nielsen had filed counterclaims within the district court docket. The automated-stay provision of the Chapter Code halts proceedings in opposition to a debtor. Nielsen’s counterclaims in opposition to Cumulus have been stayed. The query was whether or not that keep additionally froze Cumulus’s personal claims and this attraction.
The panel held it didn’t. Becoming a member of a majority of circuit courts, the court docket concluded {that a} case should be disaggregated into claims introduced by and in opposition to a debtor, and that the automated keep reaches solely the latter. As a result of the injunction involved solely Cumulus’s authentic claims, and since Nielsen filed its counterclaims after the discover of attraction, the attraction may proceed.
Cumulus’s monetary situation stays unresolved. In response to Radio World, the broadcaster has acquired chapter court docket approval for its reorganization plan however has not but obtained Federal Communications Fee approval for the associated transfers of station licenses.
The injunction’s phrases
Nielsen additionally challenged the design of the injunction, arguing it was too imprecise to fulfill the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Process 65(d). The order bars Nielsen from imposing the Community Coverage and from charging a commercially unreasonable fee for standalone Nationwide. It defines a secure harbor: a fee equal to or decrease than the best annual 2026 fee Nielsen prices any broadcaster for Nationwide is presumptively affordable.
The panel discovered that provision clear sufficient. Nielsen can decide a presumptively affordable fee by surveying what it prices different giant community purchasers. The court docket famous that Nielsen by no means articulated what a extra particular injunction would seem like, which additional undermined its vagueness argument.
Why this reaches past radio
The choice arrives in opposition to a backdrop of intensifying antitrust strain on the infrastructure of promoting. The measurement layer, the information that units the value and placement of advert stock, sits on the coronary heart of the {industry}, and this case establishes that dominant knowledge suppliers can face tying legal responsibility for pricing ways, not simply express bundling guidelines.
The parallels to different present disputes are direct. A federal court docket discovered that Google monopolized digital promoting know-how markets and unlawfully tied its writer advert server and advert change collectively, a ruling that produced follow-on litigation from publishers. Tying preparations additionally type a part of the broader case that led a court docket to arrange cures in opposition to Google’s search and promoting companies. The Cumulus ruling provides appellate weight to the precept {that a} monopolist can not use worth to perform what an specific tie would.
The viewers measurement sector itself has been unsettled for years. Nielsen has confronted questions over methodology and competitors because the market fragments throughout linear, streaming, and related TV, developments which have pushed rivals comparable to Fifty5Blue to relaunch with hybrid measurement fashions. YouTube’s energy over measurement suppliers surfaced when the platform pressed the UK’s Barb to halt sure TV measurement. The widespread thread is the facility that flows from controlling the forex by which promoting is purchased and offered.
For now, the case returns to Decide Vargas within the Southern District of New York, which can resolve final legal responsibility. The panel resolved the antitrust questions on a preliminary foundation, deferring to the district court docket’s factual findings, and Nielsen stays free to maneuver to switch or vacate the injunction in mild of the chapter. The February 3, 2026 keep that had suspended the injunction throughout the attraction is now vacated, restoring the block on the Community Coverage.
Timeline
- 2024: Nielsen adopts its Community Coverage, ending the separate sale of Nationwide and native knowledge for networks with native stations
- September 2024: The Community Coverage takes impact
- Might 2025: Cumulus and Nielsen start negotiating a brand new contract
- June 2025: Nielsen gives the total Nationwide product bundled with all native markets the place Cumulus operates
- July 25, 2025: A Nielsen government characterizes the stripped-down nationwide product as “Swiss cheese” on a name with Cumulus
- August 2025: Negotiations attain an deadlock; Cumulus sends a cease-and-desist letter
- September 2025: Nielsen exempts Cumulus and gives a standalone Nationwide worth ten instances its present fee
- October 16, 2025: Nielsen makes a last bundled provide; Cumulus information go well with the identical day
- December 30, 2025: Decide Jeannette Vargas grants Cumulus a preliminary injunction
- February 3, 2026: The Second Circuit stays the injunction pending attraction
- March 10, 2026: Cumulus information for Chapter 11 chapter
- Might 7, 2026: The Second Circuit hears oral argument
- July 13, 2026: The Second Circuit affirms the injunction and vacates its keep
Abstract
Who: The USA Courtroom of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruling on a dispute between Cumulus Media New Holdings and The Nielsen Firm. Cumulus operates 395 radio stations and the Westwood One community; Nielsen is the only real provider of nationwide radio rankings knowledge in america.
What: The panel affirmed a preliminary injunction barring Nielsen from imposing its Community Coverage, which conditioned entry to a usable nationwide rankings report on the acquisition of Nielsen’s native knowledge. The court docket held that Nielsen’s standalone nationwide worth, ten instances what Cumulus had been paying, functioned as a constructive tie in violation of Part 2 of the Sherman Act, and it acknowledged constructive tying as a sound antitrust idea within the circuit.
When: The appeals court docket determined the case on July 13, 2026, after oral argument on Might 7, 2026. Radio World reported the ruling on July 14, 2026. The underlying injunction was issued on December 30, 2025.
The place: The case originated in america District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York earlier than Decide Jeannette Vargas and was heard on attraction within the Second Circuit. The conduct affected the nationwide radio knowledge market and 80 native radio knowledge markets the place Cumulus operates.
Why: The ruling establishes {that a} monopolist can face tying legal responsibility for utilizing exorbitant pricing to attain the impact of a bundle, a precept with direct utility to promoting measurement and advert know-how markets the place dominant suppliers management the information that costs and locations stock. The case now returns to the district court docket to resolve final legal responsibility.
Source link
