Nielsen is pushing back against Cumulus Media’s attempt to secure emergency contract relief, telling a federal judge the broadcaster is trying to use antitrust law to force Nielsen into a rewritten ratings deal at half price — terms the measurement giant says it never offered and cannot sustain. In a filing in federal court in New York — filled with multiple redactions — Nielsen wastes no time framing its defense. It alleges Cumulus Media wants to renew its contract with Nielsen, but pay 50% less for the same services. Nielsen says that demand amounts to asking a court to order the ratings company to provide its services at an “untenable price” that Nielsen says it “never offered” to Cumulus Media. It calls the request “unprecedented” and warns if the court goes along with the request, it would “open the door” to other “improper and frivolous requests” from ratings subscribers. “At bottom, Cumulus and Nielsen are in a run-of-the-mill pricing dispute,” Nielsen argues. “The fact that Cumulus — a company with $700 million in revenue and $90 million cash on hand —would prefer this Court to impose on Nielsen a partial contract reflecting Cumulus’ preferred pricing is insufficient reason for the court to award the requested relief.” In an antitrust lawsuit filed in October, Cumulus Media asked the court to block Nielsen from implementing a tying policy that conditions access to national radio ratings data on the purchase of separate local radio ratings data. Cumulus Media calls it a “textbook abuse of monopoly power” that harms competition by preventing radio stations from freely choosing the local radio ratings data providers they want. The lawsuit cites a 36% increase in Westwood One’s national ratings data in 2022, along with consistent subsequent price hikes tied to Nielsen’s “tying policy” that links national and local rating products. But Nielsen has defended its practices, telling the court that Cumulus Media isn’t fighting a monopoly, but rather waging a “lawfare” campaign by using antitrust claims as a weapon to win better pricing in what the ratings giant insists is “nothing more than a contract dispute.” In its latest filing, Nielsen says the harm argument keeps mutating. “Cumulus’s theory of irreparable harm is a moving target,” the filing states, arguing that Cumulus waited until litigation was underway to claim an “existential threat,” something it says Cumulus “never raised… to Nielsen when negotiating the terms for a new contract” and “has not disclosed to its investors despite reporting earnings during the dispute.” Nielsen insists the injunction bar is high — especially for the mandatory relief Cumulus is now seeking. The company argues Cumulus Media’s claims are economic, compensable, and self-inflicted, noting there is “no evidence” that Cumulus Media is at any risk of not having access to Nielsen’s nationwide data pointing to its own proposals that included nationwide service. And on the tying policy itself, Nielsen defends both the logic and the math behind it. “There is no data for nationwide without the local reports,” it tells the court. It adds that limiting national access without local subscription “creates at least some degree of a free riding problem” and that the policy ensures Nielsen’s revenue is aligned with costs so the audio measurement service remains “sustainable.” Nielsen also rejects the claim that the policy walls out Eastlan, the rival measurement firm Cumulus Media has been courting. It cites testimony that Eastlan can enter markets with minimal scale, and has entered “18 new markets” in the past year, five between September and December alone. Nielsen argues it is settled precedent that antitrust laws “‘were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors.’” U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas could rule on the injunction request in the coming days. In the meantime, unless there is a sudden change, Cumulus Media’s ratings contract with Nielsen is set to expire Dec. 31.