| Nielsen Asked Closed Court
in Antitrust Case by Westwood One
Inner City Press Partial Win Now
Stay for Appeal SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 17 -- In
the ongoing antitrust case of Cumulus, owner
of Westwood One, against Nielsen for monopoly
over-charging for nationwide data, both
parties on August 31 filed that their
September 1 evidentiary hearing should be
sealed.
Inner
City Press went to the courtroom and spoke in
opposition, from the podium. One of Nielsen's
lawyers from Gibson Dunn, Joshua Lipton,
insisted commercial harm could trump all other
issues. U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge Jeannette A.
Vargas, noting the Press' First Amendment
arguments, said only the first part of the
proceeding would be sealed. Later on September 1, she ruled similarly but in more detailed in a 13 page order on Inner City Press' (and the defendant's) objection to sealing Daubert hearings in US v Ho And
so here, Nielsen (soon, Ho): Cumulus'
lawyer
Jennifer Fleury of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader:
Nielsen's expert excluded I-Heart and Audacy,
then Salem, to drive up the presumed
reasonable rate. [Inner City Press is here
voluntarily not publishing the actual dollar
amount, said apparently in error] Now
Cumulus' cross of Nielsen's expert Mark
Zmijewski pka "Professor Z" Prof
Z: My model is applicable to any customer. Cumulus'
lawyer:
So there are five to 15 companies which buy
"nationwide" from Nielsen on a stand-alone
basis? Prof
Z: There are 10. Not tracked by BIA, so out Prof
Z: They were so small- Cumulus' lawyer: What
do you mean? Prof Z: Cumulus has $175.3
million in revenue. Smaller companies, I
excluded. Nielsen told me they didn't have any
information Cumulus' lawyer: You had pricing
data? Prof Z: Not from BIA. I needed that Prof
Z: No contract is going to be exactly like
that of Cumulus' Westwood One. But I used a
benchmark. It's like looking at prices of
houses - you don't use ones that are not
comparable.
[Then Prof Z said something and quickly
apologized- courtroom sealed Can't
go back in - but will follow the case. Then an order, itself "***Sealed*** OPINION AND ORDER re: [224] LETTER MOTION to Seal Portions of Nielsen's Partial Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Supplement the Record (ECF No. 222) addressed to Judge Jeannette A. Vargas from Joshua Lipton dated September 4, 2026. filed by The Nielsen Company (US) LLC, [187] MOTION to Enforce Preliminary Injunction Order [REDACTED]. filed by Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc., [239] LETTER MOTION to Seal portions of September 1, 2026 evidentiary hearing transcript." Docketed on September 17, a stay pending appeal: Appellant moves for a stay pending resolution of this appeal from the district court's September 9, 2026 order, granting Appellee's motion to enforce the district court's preliminary injunction. Appellee opposes. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 9/16/2026 To Judge Vargas' credit, with her sealing is not as automatic as in some other area court, particularly in EDNY, here. Watch this site. The case is Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC, 1:25-cv-8581 (Vargas)
*** Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron. 
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis. Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com |
Investigative reporting from the inner city to Wall Street to the United Nations This is the blogspot version InnerCityPress.com