Nielsen Accuses Cumulus Of Waging ‘Lawfare’ In Ratings Dispute.

Nielsen says Cumulus Media isn’t fighting a monopoly, but rather waging a “lawfare” campaign by using antitrust claims as a weapon to win better pricing in what the ratings giant insists is nothing more than a contract dispute. In a new filing opposing Cumulus’ request for expedited discovery in its antitrust lawsuit, Nielsen says the broadcaster is weaponizing litigation to force more favorable contract terms rather than resolving what it calls a standard business negotiation.

“Cumulus’s suit is nothing more than a contract negotiation masquerading as an antitrust case,” Nielsen’s attorneys argue in a five-page letter to U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas. They accuse the broadcaster of using the courts “to drive down prices via lawfare” and to “manufacture” a sense of urgency by rejecting Nielsen’s offers to extend its current contract on identical terms.

In a lawsuit filed this month in U.S. District Court in New York, Cumulus asked the court to block Nielsen from implementing a tying policy that conditions access to national radio ratings data on the purchase of separate local radio ratings data. Cumulus calls it a “textbook abuse of monopoly power” that harms competition.

Cumulus has asked the court to fast-track discovery, arguing it needs evidence before year’s end to prevent “irreparable harm” to its national radio network business. Cumulus is seeking to secure internal Nielsen communications to show how its alleged “tying policy” restricts competition. It has asked for internal pricing and customer communications dating back to 2021, as well as court-ordered depositions of executives.

But Nielsen says that plan is “unduly burdensome and highly prejudicial,” arguing there is “no emergency” and “no basis for massive discovery.” The ratings company insists the dispute stems from ongoing renewal talks, accusing Cumulus of trying to “transform a contract renewal negotiation into a fabricated antitrust claim.”

Pushback Against Expansive Discovery

According to the letter, Nielsen has presented Cumulus with multiple renewal options — including stand-alone national and local data products without the alleged “tie” that triggered the lawsuit — and even offered to extend the existing agreement beyond its Dec. 31 expiration.

Because Cumulus could continue its access to ratings data under those terms, Nielsen thinks there is no need for a preliminary injunction because if the court determines harm was done to the broadcaster it could be resolved through monetary damages.

Instead, Nielsen is asking the court to adopt its narrower evidence discovery process with limited document exchanges, one deposition per side, and a single round of expert reports. “The issue here is scope,” the filing says, noting that Nielsen has already agreed to an expedited schedule.

Setting The Stage For A Showdown

Judge Vargas will now decide whether Cumulus gets the accelerated discovery it wants—or agree with Nielsen that this is a business dispute disguised as a crisis. Going forward, the larger case will likely hinge on Nielsen’s 2024 decision to require broadcasters buying national ratings to also secure local data everywhere it owns stations.

Cumulus alleges the policy effectively forces broadcasters to pay for “products they neither want nor need,” or risk losing national ratings essential for selling network radio ads.

But Nielsen tells the court that it offered Cumulus a deal that didn’t require that, saying it believes the radio group simply wants the court to override its proposed three-year agreement with a “bespoke package” at a lower rate. “Cumulus simply does not want to pay what Nielsen is charging,” it says.