Nielsen Has Appealed Antitrust Ruling to Supreme Court

The ratings giant petitioned the high court to review a Second Circuit ruling involving radio pricing strategies.

Updated on Sept. 23, 2026 in Advertising

Bold flat-color editorial illustration showing a stone plinth resting against a steel block, symbolizing complex antitrust legal structures. — Nielsen has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court antitrust ruling that found its radio ratings bundling practices potentially anticompetitive. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should courts regulate how businesses bundle products and services for sale to customers?

Nielsen has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit antitrust ruling regarding how it bundles radio ratings services. The appeal follows a lower court order for the company to provide new pricing offers to competitors like Cumulus.

Why it matters

The company argues that the lower court's finding of constructive tying contradicts existing antitrust standards set by other federal circuits. This case could significantly impact how firms structure bundled service pricing to avoid allegations of forced purchasing.

Nielsen was initially granted only a 24-hour window by the district court to submit a revised pricing offer before the Second Circuit issued an administrative stay. The company offers both local radio ratings and a national report through bundled discounts.

The players

Nielsen

Nielsen is a global leader in audience measurement, data, and analytics for the media industry.

Cumulus

Cumulus Media is a major American radio broadcasting company that operates hundreds of stations nationwide.

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States and holds the authority of judicial review.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice is the federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of federal law.

The details

The legal dispute centers on the theory of constructive tying, where high prices for individual services make the bundle a mandatory purchase. The Department of Justice and legal teams involved in Google litigation have already noted the Second Circuit's decision in their own filings.

December 30: A district court granted Cumulus a preliminary injunction.
July 13: The Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
August 18: An appeals court denied Nielsen a request for a rehearing.
September 9: The district court ordered Nielsen to submit a new pricing offer.
September 15: Nielsen filed a petition for Supreme Court review.

Market Landscape

This case highlights an intensifying regulatory scrutiny of bundling practices, with legal teams in the Google antitrust litigation specifically citing the Second Circuit decision. The outcome will likely redefine how dominant firms navigate competition law while maintaining bundled service models.

For media clients and radio operators, this legal battle may eventually force changes in how research and data services are priced and bundled. Customers could see shifts in contract terms or service costs depending on whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns the lower court ruling.

The takeaway

Antitrust litigation regarding service bundles serves as a reminder for firms to audit their pricing strategies against evolving judicial interpretations of forced purchasing. Businesses should monitor these high-court proceedings to anticipate potential shifts in how they package commercial data offerings.