The US Department of Justice has told the FCC it sees no need to formally review iHeartMedia’s latest foreign ownership application, clearing a significant regulatory hurdle for the company’s proposed ownership restructuring tied to UK radio giant Global.
In a letter to the FCC, the DOJ’s National Security Division notified the commission that its Team Telecom committee, which screens foreign investment in US telecom and broadcast companies, does not believe a full national security referral is necessary for the application.
The filing involves iHeart’s request to restructure how UK-based investor Michael Tabor holds his stake in the company. Tabor, who controls Global Media & Entertainment Investments Ltd. through a Bahamas-based trust, is seeking to transfer some or all of GMEI’s stake to a related entity, Global Media Investments Limited. His son, Ashley Tabor-King, who leads Global and GMI, is expected to take on a larger management role in the investment going forward.
iHeart is asking the FCC to approve a group of individuals and entities connected to GMEI and GMI to hold stakes above the 5% foreign ownership threshold, with a combined cap of 14.99%. The company has framed the changes as minor, noting that Michael Tabor would remain the ultimate controlling party.
The DOJ said its determination was informed by iHeart’s prior applications, the company’s responses to standard national security questions, and — critically — its ongoing compliance with a mitigation agreement signed with DOJ in June 2020. That existing Letter of Agreement appears to have given Team Telecom enough confidence that fresh scrutiny wasn’t warranted.
For the broader radio industry, the DOJ’s posture may come as a quiet exhale.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has recently signaled renewed interest in tightening the commission’s foreign ownership rules, putting the industry on notice that the “whos” behind U.S. broadcasters are getting a harder look in Washington. The DOJ’s hands-off approach in iHeart’s case suggests that long-standing, well-documented foreign investment relationships, particularly those already governed by mitigation agreements, may fare better under that heightened scrutiny than newer or less transparent arrangements.
