Nielsen: Cumulus Suit Could Kill ‘Nationwide’ Ratings

Updated at 4:45pm

How serious is the threat to Nielsen Audio radio ratings services from Cumulus Media‘s lawsuit against the nation’s dominant audience measurement and consumer data firm? Rich Tunkel, the Managing Director for Nielsen Audio, told the U.S. District Court considering the case in a supporting declaration that a Cumulus win could forever cripple the company’s ability to deliver “Nationwide” listener consumption analyses.

Local market radio ratings reports are not impacted by this. It was incorrectly reported in an earlier version of this story that these ratings reports were involved in the Nielsen-Cumulus Media matter.

As first reported by Streamline Publishing’s Radio Ink on Tuesday, The Nielsen Company has briefly paused a preliminary injunction granted to Cumulus Media by a New York federal district court in the final hours of 2025.

Why? Nielsen warned that its audio arm would “suffer significant irreparable harm” and even suggested that may be forced to retire its “Nationwide” radio ratings product if the court ruling stands.

Nielsen filed the motion on January 9, in which it sought a stay of enforcement on Judge Jeannette Vargas’s December 30 injunction while an appeal proceeds. The order blocked Nielsen’s Network Policy and prohibited the company from charging what the court deemed a “commercially unreasonable” rate for its standalone “Nationwide” report.

Represented by “Big Law” superfirm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Nielsen argued that the ruling misapplied antitrust law and wrongly characterized pricing negotiations as coercive conduct. Nielsen’s motion contends the court “undertook the task of determining the “proper price” for its product, something the company says “courts are ill-suited” to decide. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the company argued that its negotiations with Cumulus represented “ordinary give and take of complex contract negotiations between two sophisticated parties.”

The filing included a supporting declaration from Tunkel, the longtime face of radio industry ratings at Nielsen Audio. He described the consequences of the injunction as immediate and far-reaching. “If Nielsen is unable to apply the Network Policy, then it will be hindered in its ability to ensure that it can recover the costs of collecting the local radio-ratings data that make up the Nationwide report and spread those costs appropriately across the customers that use the products generated from those joint costs,” Tunkel wrote. “If Nielsen cannot recover these costs, then it may have to retire the Nationwide report.”

“If Nielsen is unable to apply the Network Policy, then it will be hindered in its ability to ensure that it can recover the costs of collecting the local radio-ratings data that make up the Nationwide report and spread those costs appropriately across the customers that use the products generated from those joint costs.”

For broadcasters, the implications of that statement are monumental. If Nielsen’s Nationwide report were suspended, the national radio ad market would lose its central measurement currency, as networks depend on Nationwide data to prove audience size and sell national campaigns to advertisers. Smaller broadcasters relying on network revenue could also feel the effects, as agencies could freeze or divert spending to digital and streaming platforms with consistent metrics.

Tunkel posited the order also places Nielsen “at risk,” because “Nielsen’s commercial proposals to Cumulus will be subject to the risk that the Court will deem Nielsen to be in violation of a Court order if Cumulus should consider a pricing proposal to be too high.” He warned that risk “distorts commercial negotiations” by discouraging the normal process of counteroffers and compromise.

The filing argues that such uncertainty will ripple beyond Cumulus. “If Nielsen is constrained in its ability to recover a fair share of its costs (as well as a return on its investments) from Cumulus,” Tunkel said, “that would impact Nielsen’s negotiations with other customers. It would require Nielsen to raise the prices charged to those customers, possibly beyond their ability to pay, and could make it economically unviable for Nielsen to continue selling the Nationwide product.”

In its appeal arguments, Nielsen asserts that the injunction fails Rule 65’s specificity requirements because the term “commercially unreasonable” is undefined. The company says the ambiguity will create “a cloud of uncertainty over ongoing negotiations” and could force it to modify existing customer contracts. Tunkel emphasized that there is “no single commercially reasonable rate” for the Nationwide report. He explained pricing depends on a customer’s size, audience reach, and existing purchases of local data, with costs distributed among all users.

Nielsen’s attorneys asked the court to stay the injunction pending appeal, or at least issue a temporary administrative stay while the Second Circuit reviews the motion. The company maintains that a stay would simply preserve “the pre-injunction status quo” and that Cumulus “would suffer no injury” because it could still negotiate terms or pay under protest.

As of Monday, enforcement of the injunction is paused until Friday, January 16. Judge Vargas denied Nielsen’s request for a full stay but granted a short administrative delay so Nielsen can ask the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for relief. After January 16, the injunction takes effect again unless extended.