Judge Details Why Nielsen’s Ratings Pricing Likely Crosses Antitrust Line.

A federal judge is laying out in detail when she granted an early victory to Cumulus Media in its antitrust battle with Nielsen, blocking the ratings company from enforcing its disputed “Network Policy” and imposing a court-ordered pricing guardrail on Nielsen’s nationwide radio ratings while the case moves forward.

District Judge Jeannette Vargas’ just-released 47-page opinion expands on a short preliminary injunction issued last month, detailing why she believes Cumulus is likely to succeed on its antitrust claims. In the ruling, Vargas granted Cumulus’ request for a preliminary injunction, concluding the broadcaster demonstrated irreparable harm and a strong likelihood of success on its claims that Nielsen unlawfully used monopoly power to tie national and local radio ratings products.

At the center of Vargas’s analysis is her determination that national and local radio ratings are distinct products serving different purposes, and that Nielsen’s nationwide ratings product is effectively indispensable for selling national advertising. Because Nielsen is the only provider of comprehensive national radio ratings, Vargas writes, the company possesses the kind of market power that triggers heightened antitrust scrutiny.

“The court concludes that Nielsen’s Network Policy is an anticompetitive tying policy,” Vargas writes, rejecting Nielsen’s argument that the policy was merely a lawful bundling or discounting strategy.

Coercion, Not Choice

A key theme in the opinion is coercion. Vargas says the record shows broadcasters were not meaningfully free to buy national ratings without also purchasing local ratings in every market where they operate. Under the challenged policy, she notes, failure to subscribe locally resulted in holes in the national dataset — rendering it commercially unusable.

Even Nielsen’s later offer to sell national ratings as a standalone product failed to resolve the problem, since the offered price was 10-times more than what Cumulus was paying for nationwide data under its 2025 contract.

“Pricing a standalone product at a level that makes separate purchase economically infeasible may itself constitute coercion,” the judge writes, concluding the offered rate effectively forced buyers back into the bundled purchase.

Vargas also repeatedly emphasizes that antitrust law protects the competitive process, not individual companies. In that context, she finds persuasive evidence that Nielsen’s policies restrict competition in local ratings markets by limiting broadcasters’ ability to use alternative providers.

The opinion points to testimony that rivals like Eastlan struggle to gain traction when the largest radio groups are locked into Nielsen contracts. Vargas notes that even if rivals can technically enter a market, policies that prevent them from achieving scale or credibility can still constitute anticompetitive harm.

Nielsen’s Justifications Fall Short

Nielsen argues its policies were justified by the economics of building national ratings from costly local data and by concerns over “free riding.” But Vargas rejects those explanations as insufficient in the order.

Her opinion notes that Nielsen already uses contract provisions to prevent improper data sharing, undercutting claims that tying was necessary to address free riding. And while she acknowledges Nielsen’s cost structure, Vargas writes that recovering fixed costs does not permit a monopolist to impose exclusionary conditions that harm competition.

“A firm may not use monopoly power in one market to force purchases in another simply because it is economically convenient,” she concludes.

In granting preliminary relief, Vargas concludes allowing Nielsen’s policy to remain in place during litigation would risk lasting harm to competition — harm that could not easily be undone even if Cumulus ultimately prevails. That is only exacerbated by Nielsen’s dominant position in the national ratings market and the role ratings data play in the advertising ecosystem.

What Comes Next

The ruling does not resolve the merits of the antitrust case, which proceeds. But the injunction reshapes the near-term balance of power between the two companies, limiting how Nielsen can price and sell its national ratings while the court considers whether its business practices violate federal antitrust law.

In the near-term, Nielsen is blocked from tying its national and local ratings. And Cumulus, whose ratings contract expired Dec. 31, won’t have to pay any more in 2026 than what other broadcasters pay for national ratings.