Cumulus Urges Appeals Court To Uphold Injunction In Nielsen Ratings Fight.

Cumulus Media is urging a federal appeals court to uphold the preliminary injunction blocking Nielsen’s ratings practices, arguing the company’s policy is a clear-cut case of illegal tying that has already caused significant financial harm — including contributing to its recent bankruptcy filing.

In a brief field with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Cumulus argues Nielsen’s conduct is “plainly unlawful,” accusing the ratings company of forcing broadcasters to purchase local ratings data in order to access its national ratings report.

Cumulus rejects Nielsen’s argument that the dispute is merely about pricing or contract terms, instead framing the policy as arm-twisting. “This is coercion, pure and simple,” Cumulus alleges, describing Nielsen’s approach as one that leaves broadcasters with no meaningful choice.

The arguments echo much of what Cumulus has already argued in its suit filed last October in district court. At the center of the dispute is Nielsen’s “Network Policy” adopted in 2024, which Cumulus says effectively blocks access to usable national ratings unless a broadcaster also buys Nielsen’s local market data. While Nielsen has argued it offers a standalone national product, Cumulus says that version is intentionally crippled.

The filing describes the standalone offering as a “Swiss cheese version — which (by design) is useless.” Cumulus says the standalone product omitted data from four dozen local markets needed to support national advertising sales.

Even when Nielsen offered a standalone version of its national ratings, Cumulus tells the court that the price was set so high that it was not a viable option. According to the filing, Nielsen offered a rate “10-times higher” than what Cumulus had previously paid, making it economically impractical to purchase without also buying local ratings data.

Cumulus argues that allowing such pricing to stand would effectively gut antitrust protections. The brief warns that under Nielsen’s logic, a company could avoid liability simply by setting extreme prices, suggesting it could charge “$1 billion” and still claim there is no tying violation.

The broadcaster also links the dispute directly to its financial condition, telling the court that Nielsen’s policy has already had real-world consequences. The filing describes the ratings policy as a “significant contributing cause” of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Beyond bankruptcy, Cumulus says the company also faces ongoing harm without access to Nielsen’s national ratings, including lost advertising opportunities and diminished competitiveness in the marketplace.

Cumulus is asking the appeals court to affirm the ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, who issued a preliminary injunction in January after she found Cumulus had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims and that it would suffer irreparable harm without it. Cumulus also argues the injunction is narrowly-tailored, preventing Nielsen from enforcing its tying policy through charging an exorbitant price.

Earlier this month, Nielsen asked the Second Circuit to overturn the preliminary injunction. They argued the lower court improperly forced the company to sell its data on terms dictated by a customer. Nielsen contends the ruling fundamentally misapplies antitrust law and interferes with how Nielsen packages and prices its audience measurement products.

It’s unclear how long the Second Circuit may take to issue its decision. Cumulus is urging the court to quickly decide on whether the temporary injunction can be put in place while the larger case advances. Cumulus notes it is set to lose access to national ratings in September, and without a timely ruling, the impact will continue to grow.

Even a decision comes quickly, the lower court case has been put on hold until Cumulus completes its Chapter 11 reorganization.