Appeals Court Gives Nielsen Short-Term Relief

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has granted Nielsen a temporary administrative stay, pausing a lower court ruling that blocked the ratings company from linking its national and local radio market ratings products.

The stay, which extends an earlier administrative pause issued by U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, remains in effect while a three-judge panel reviews Nielsen's request for a more permanent stay pending full appeal. The timing of that decision is uncertain.

The development provides short-term relief to Nielsen in its ongoing antitrust dispute with Cumulus Media. Last month, Judge Vargas sided with Cumulus in a preliminary injunction, finding the broadcaster demonstrated likely success on claims that Nielsen unlawfully tied national ratings (via its Network Policy) to purchases of local market data and charged commercially unreasonable rates for standalone national reports.  She ruled this likely violated antitrust laws, causing Cumulus irreparable harm, and barred enforcement of the policy.

Nielsen appealed the injunction, arguing its practices are legally compliant, that the order improperly restricts pricing discretion, distorts negotiations, and could force it to retire its Nationwide radio ratings product—inflicting irreparable harm on the company. It sought a stay from Vargas, who denied it, stating Nielsen was unlikely to prevail on appeal and that tying national and local ratings should remain prohibited.

Nielsen then turned to the Second Circuit for relief, leading to the current temporary administrative stay.

The lawsuit filed by Cumulus Media against Nielsen accuses the ratings company of engaging in anticompetitive practices through what's known as "tying."

In antitrust law, tying occurs when a company with significant market power in one product (the "tying" product) uses that dominance to force customers to also purchase a separate, often less desirable product (the "tied" product). Customers strongly want—or may even depend on—the powerful product and can't easily obtain it from elsewhere. Without it, their business could suffer. To access the desired product, though, they're required to buy the additional one as well. The two become effectively bundled or "tied" together—you can't get the one you really need on its own.

Such arrangements can violate U.S. antitrust laws if they harm competition, compel unwanted purchases, or exclude rivals in the market for the tied product. Courts typically evaluate tying claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, particularly Section 2, which prohibits monopolization or attempts to monopolize any part of interstate commerce.

In this case, Cumulus alleges that Nielsen is employing a classic tying arrangement. Specifically, Cumulus claims Nielsen leverages its monopoly power in national radio ratings data to condition access to that essential nationwide product on the mandatory purchase of its local market ratings data—even when broadcasters might prefer cheaper or alternative local options (such as from competitors like Eastlan). 

Cumulus describes this "Network Policy" (introduced by Nielsen in 2024) as a "textbook abuse of monopoly power" that stifles competition and inflates costs in local markets.