Federal judge blocks Nexstar-Tegna TV station merger until antitrust lawsuit is settled

Federal Judge Blocks $6.2 Billion Nexstar-Tegna TV Station Merger Amid Antitrust Concerns

A federal judge has halted the proposed $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna, dealing a significant blow to what would have created one of the largest local television conglomerates in the United States.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley issued the preliminary injunction late Friday from Sacramento, California, siding with a coalition of eight Democratic state attorneys general and satellite provider DirecTV. The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their antitrust lawsuit against the media companies.

The contested merger, which received Federal Communications Commission approval earlier this year, would have established a broadcasting behemoth controlling 265 television stations across 44 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these stations operate as local affiliates of major networks including ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.

In his ruling, Judge Nunley expressed concern that the combined entity would wield excessive market power, potentially enabling Nexstar to demand higher retransmission fees from distributors like DirecTV, ultimately resulting in increased costs for consumers. The judge also cited Nexstar’s history of consolidating local news operations when it controls multiple stations in a single market.

“Viewers will lose options for where to get their local news,” Nunley wrote, adding that halting the merger for now is “in the public interest.”

The judge’s decision highlighted particularly concerning leverage the merged company would have during carriage negotiations. Distributors like DirecTV could face difficult choices: either accept Nexstar’s demands for higher broadcast fees or risk leaving subscribers unable to access popular programming like NFL games on Sundays.

The legal challenge to the merger has exposed unusual aspects of the regulatory review process. Judge Nunley described the FCC’s clearance process as “unusual” and stated that regulatory oversight “did not curb the manifest anticompetitive effects of this acquisition.”

The Department of Justice, typically responsible for antitrust reviews of such mergers, closed its investigation through an “early termination” in March, ending its review sooner than statutorily required. This expedited conclusion came despite serious antitrust concerns raised by numerous stakeholders.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr had previously stated that Nexstar agreed to divest six stations as a condition of approval, a concession that critics argued was insufficient given the scale of the proposed merger.

Judge Nunley’s ruling also referenced political influence in the regulatory process, noting that “the President himself weighed in publicly in February and urged federal regulators to approve the deal to ‘knock out the Fake News,'” describing these as “unusual circumstances” occurring while the FCC’s licensing proceeding was still pending.

While Nexstar and Tegna representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment, company attorneys had previously argued that the merger underwent proper regulatory scrutiny and received necessary approvals. They also contended that FCC conditions would actually require the combined company to expand local journalism and programming, not reduce it.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the leading plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the injunction as a “critical victory” for media competition.

“Consolidating hundreds of local TV stations under one corporate owner would mean higher prices and lower quality programming for consumers,” James said in a statement. “We will keep fighting our case to ensure fair competition among local TV stations that serve communities across the country.”

The preliminary injunction maintains the status quo while the underlying antitrust lawsuit proceeds through the courts. The case represents one of the most significant challenges to media consolidation in recent years, occurring amid growing concerns about the health of local journalism and the concentration of media ownership in fewer corporate hands.

Media industry analysts note that the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for future mergers in the broadcasting sector, potentially establishing new precedents for how regulators and courts evaluate competition in local television markets.