The federal antitrust case between Cumulus Media and Nielsen took a significant turn Monday, as a federal judge sided with Cumulus Media’s request to shield the identities of third-party witnesses, allowing them to testify without fear of any Nielsen retaliation.
In her December 15 order, Judge Vargas allowed names and job titles of third-party declarants to remain redacted in court filings related to Cumulus’s preliminary injunction request. The court formally acknowledged the “susceptibility to economic retaliation” facing individuals who cooperate with Cumulus’s claims.
Cumulus contends that Nielsen wields disproportionate power in contract negotiations and could punish dissent by raising rates or modifying terms, particularly for broadcasters dependent on its audience measurement services in major markets. Judge Vargas found these concerns, combined with the narrow scope of the redactions, outweighed the public interest in transparency.
The court’s reversal came on the same day Cumulus EVP of Corporate Strategy and Westwood One President Collin Jones submitted his third declaration, countering Nielsen’s December 1 arguments. Jones challenged Nielsen’s claim that Cumulus’s financial struggles result from internal management, asserting that additional cost-cutting cannot offset the burdens created by Nielsen’s alleged tying policy.
Though most of Jones’s testimony remains sealed, the visible portions emphasize that Nielsen’s current contract practices represent a departure from prior years. Unlike previous negotiations, Jones argues, Nielsen no longer provides market-by-market pricing, preventing Cumulus from making informed financial decisions for individual stations.
Jones also maintained that Nielsen’s shift away from pricing transparency was a break from its past behavior, citing detailed proposals shared during the 2023 contract negotiation process. In contrast, he said, Nielsen’s latest offers lacked the information necessary to evaluate the economics of each market, which he argued is critical for a broadcaster of Cumulus’s size and scope.
Judge Vargas has not yet ruled on the broader injunction request, which seeks relief from what Cumulus describes as unlawful tying of national and local ratings products.
However, the court has now twice acknowledged the power imbalance central to the dispute: first by permitting Eastlan CEO Michael Gould to respond to credibility challenges, and now by recognizing economic retaliation from Nielsen as a legitimate concern for industry witnesses.
