In a significant legal blow to Nielsen, a federal judge has sided with Cumulus Media. Barrett Media has learned that a preliminary injunction has been granted in Cumulus’s favor, halting the ratings giant’s controversial “Network Policy.”

The ruling, issued December 30, 2025, by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, effectively prevents Nielsen from enforcing what Cumulus alleged was an anticompetitive “tying policy” designed to maintain a monopoly over radio ratings data.

The Ruling: A Victory for Cumulus

Judge Vargas found that Cumulus successfully demonstrated a “strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits” of its antitrust claims. The court’s order immediately restrains Nielsen and its agents from enforcing the Network Policy during the pendency of the litigation.

Crucially, the injunction also bars Nielsen from “charging a commercially unreasonable rate for its Nationwide Report as a complete, standalone product”. To provide a baseline for the market, Judge Vargas noted that a rate equal to or lower than the highest annual 2026 rate Nielsen charges any other broadcaster for Nationwide data is “presumptively reasonable”.

To secure the injunction, Cumulus was ordered to post a $100,000 bond.

The “Tie” That Binds: The Legal Battle

The core of the dispute centers on Nielsen’s September 2024 Network Policy. Cumulus, which owns Westwood One, alleged that Nielsen was using its dominance in national ratings to force broadcasters to purchase local market data they might otherwise source from competitors like Eastlan.

Cumulus argued this constituted an illegal “tying” arrangement in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Without the court’s intervention, Cumulus claimed it faced “irreparable harm,” including potential financial ruin and damage to its reputation if it lost access to the Nationwide data essential for its advertising clients.

Judge Vargas agreed, stating in the order: “the Court finds that Cumulus has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm… and that the public interest weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction”.

Nielsen’s Defense: “A Run-of-the-Mill Pricing Dispute”

Throughout the proceedings, Nielsen’s legal team, led by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pushed back hard, characterizing the lawsuit as a tactical move by a sophisticated company to lower its bills.

“At bottom, Cumulus and Nielsen are in a run-of-the-mill pricing dispute,” Nielsen argued in its proposed findings. They contended that Cumulus—a company with “$700 million in revenue and $90 million cash on hand”—was simply trying to use the court to “impose on Nielsen a partial contract reflecting Cumulus’ preferred pricing”.

Nielsen’s expert, economist Jonathan Orszag, testified that the policy was actually intended to combat “free-riding” by customers who used national data derived from local markets without paying for those local services. Nielsen also claimed that Cumulus’s claims of financial disaster were “a mystery” and a “moving target,” pointing out that Cumulus had not disclosed any such “existential threat” to its investors.

Nielsen further argued that the requested relief was “unprecedented” and would turn the court into a “central planning price-setter”.

What Happens Next?

While the preliminary injunction is a major hurdle for Nielsen, the battle is far from over. The order remains in effect only until the final disposition of the case.

The court has also moved to address the confidentiality of the proceedings. In a separate Opinion and Order, Judge Vargas noted that because the full opinion contains “competitively sensitive information,” it has been filed under seal. The parties have until January 7, 2026, to meet and confer on proposed redactions before a public version is released.

For the radio industry, the ruling signals a potential shift in the power dynamics of audience measurement. By forcing Nielsen to offer Nationwide data at a “reasonable” standalone rate, the court may be opening the door for broader competition in the local ratings market.

As Nielsen stated in its filings, “The antitrust laws ‘were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors’”. For now, Judge Vargas has decided that protecting competition requires keeping Nielsen’s policies in check.

Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.